Crews v. School District No. 1, in the City and County of Denver et al

Filing 24

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice as moot 14 Amended Motion to Dismiss. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 1/21/2014.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02912-MSK-MEH
STANLEY CREWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a/k/a Denver Public
Schools,
CLIFFORD PAINE,
MICHAEL EATON,
ROBERT SWAIN,
LISA WEHRLI, and
THOMAS CONROY,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 21, 2014.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Jury Demand [docket #22] filed as
a matter of course pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). See Franklin v. Kansas Dep’t of Corr., 160 F.
App’x 730, 734 (10th Cir. 2005) (“An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and
renders the original complaint of no legal effect.”) (citing Miller v. Glanz, 948 F. 2d 1562, 1565
(10th Cir. 1991)).
In light of this filing, Defendants’ recently filed Amended Motion to Dismiss [filed
December 30, 2013; docket #14] is denied without prejudice as moot with leave to re-file, if
Defendants so choose, in response to the Amended Complaint. See Estate of Howard v. Cnty. of El
Paso, Colo., No. 10-cv-02740-CMA-MEH, 2011 WL 1562843, at *4 (D. Colo. Apr. 22, 2011)
(recognizing “requirement to file another responsive pleading to an Amended Complaint”); see also
Robinson v. Dean Foods Co., No. 08-cv-01186-REB-CBS, 2009 WL 723329, at *4 (D. Colo. Mar.
18, 2009) (citation omitted) (“Generally, when an amended complaint is filed, the previous
complaint is wiped out and the operative complaint is the most recently filed version.”) (citing
Snyder v. Pascack Valley Hosp., 303 F.3d 271, 276 (3d Cir. 2002) (“An amended complaint
supercedes the original version in providing the blueprint for the future course of a lawsuit.”)).