Hedin v. Amedisys Holding, L.L.C. et al

Filing 39

MINUTE ORDER granting 37 Motion to Amend. Plaintiff shall file a non-redlined version of his Amended Complaint [# 37 -2] on or before May 20,2014. The Motion to Dismiss [# 13 ] is DENIED as moot. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 5/14/2014.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02150-REB-KLM
PAUL HEDIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMEDISYS HOLDING, L.L.C., and
AMEDISYS WESTERN, L.L.C.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
[#13] (the “Motion to Dismiss”) and on Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Allow Amended
Complaint And Jury Demand [#37] (the “Motion”). Defendants took no position on the
Motion to Amend. Plaintiff has not previously amended his Complaint. Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the Court finds that justice would be served here by allowing Plaintiff
to amend his Complaint. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend [#37] is GRANTED. Plaintiff
shall file a non-redlined version of his Amended Complaint [#37-2] on or before May 20,
2014.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss [#13] is DENIED as moot.
See, e.g., Strich v. United States, No. 09-cv-01913-REB-KLM, 2010 WL 14826, at *1 (D.
Colo. Jan. 11, 2010) (citations omitted) (“The filing of an amended complaint moots a
motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”);
Gotfredson v. Larsen LP, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1172 (D. Colo. 2006) (noting that the
defendants’ motions to dismiss are “technically moot because they are directed at a
pleading that is no longer operative”).
Dated: May 14, 2014