Keener v. The Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest
MINUTE ORDER granting 13 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk shall accept Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for filing as of the date of this Minute Order. Denying as moot 9 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 7/16/2014. (eseam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01462-KLM
MARGIE ANN KEENER,
THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, doing business as The
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [#9] and on
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [#13] (the “Motion to
Amend”). On June 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [#8] as a matter of course
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Defendant responded to the Amended Complaint with a
Motion to Dismiss [#9]. In response to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff now seeks leave to
file a Second Amended Complaint [#13-1] in order to rectify certain pleading deficiencies
identified in the Motion to Dismiss. Given these circumstances and that it is still very early
in this case and a Scheduling Conference has not yet been held,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend [#13] is GRANTED. The Clerk
of Court is directed to accept Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint [#13-1] for filing as of
the date of this Minute Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss [#9] 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motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”); AJB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 April 28, 2009) (finding that amended complaint superseded original complaint and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”). Defendant shall file an answer or other response to
the Second Amended Complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated: July 16, 2014
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?