WildEarth Guardians v. IRG Bayaud, LLC et al

Filing 26

MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 17 Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice or For Stay and 18 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 7/8/14.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01153-MSK-KLM
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS,
Plaintiff,
v.
IRG BAYAUD, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
BRENT ANDERSON, an individual, and
JOHN YERTON, an individual,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Dismissal Without
Prejudice or For Stay [#17]1 (the “First Motion”) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) [#18] (the “Second Motion”). The First Motion and the
Second Motion each seek dismissal of the claims asserted in the initial Complaint [#1]. On
June 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive
Relief and Civil Penalties [#20]. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the First Motion [#17] and the Second Motion [#18]
are 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superseded.”); AJB Props., Ltd. v. Zarda Bar-B-Q of Lenexa, LLC, No. 09-2021-JWL, 2009
WL 1140185, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 28, 2009) (finding that amended complaint superseded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”).
Dated: July 8, 2014

1

“[#17]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to
a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I
use this convention throughout this Minute Order.