Taylor v. Budget Control Services, Inc.

Filing 27

MINUTE ORDER denying 9 Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defense of Bona Fide Error. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court sua sponte extends the deadline for Defendant to respond to the Amended Complaint to April 16, 2014. by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/9/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02590-WYD-KLM
SAUNDRA TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
BUDGET CONTROL SERVICES, INC., doing business as BCS, Inc.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s
Affirmative Defense of Bona Fide Error [#9] (the “Motion”). On September 20, 2013,
Plaintiff filed the original Complaint [#1] in this matter. On October 16, 2013, Defendant
filed its initial Answer [#7] in response to the Complaint. On November 11, 2013, Plaintiff
filed the present Motion [#9], seeking to strike one of Defendant’s affirmative defenses.
Plaintiff later requested an extension of time in which to file amended pleadings, which the
Court granted. Motion for Extension of Time [#23]; Minute Order [#25]. Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint [#26] on March 20, 2014.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#9] is DENIED as moot. The Motion is
directed at an Answer that is no longer operative because the Answer was directed to the
initial Complaint, which was supplanted and superseded by the Amended Complaint. 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dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”); AJB Props., Ltd.
v. Zarda Bar-B-Q of Lenexa, LLC, No. 09-2021-JWL, 2009 WL 1140185, at *1 (D. Kan.
April 28, 2009) (finding that amended complaint superseded original complaint and
“accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint is denied as moot”);
Gotfredson v. Larsen LP, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1172 (D. Colo. 2006) (noting that
defendants’ motions to dismiss are “technically moot because they are directed at a
pleading that is no longer operative”).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court sua sponte extends the deadline for
Defendant to respond to the Amended Complaint to April 16, 2014. Defendant shall file an
-1-

answer or other response to the Amended Complaint on or before April 16, 2014.
Dated: April 9, 2014

-2-