US Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. R2 Capital Group LLC et al

Filing 51

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 1/28/15. Motion to Dismiss [#30] is DENIED as moot.(lgale, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02182-MSK-KLM
US COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
R2 CAPITAL GROUP LLC,
RAST INVESTOR GROUP, LLC,
MADIGAN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
BULLETPROOF VEST, INC.,
RYAN TOMAZIN,
RYAN MADIGAN, and
RANDALL A. VEST,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#30] (the
“Motion”), filed on October 3, 2014. On November 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint [#38]. On January 1, 2015, before Defendants were required to respond to the
Amended Complaint, a stay was entered and Defendants’ deadline to file an answer or
other response to the Amended Complaint was extended to no later than ten days after the
present stay is lifted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#30] 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dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”); AJB Props., Ltd.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April 28, 2009) (finding that amended complaint superseded original complaint and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”).
Dated: January 28, 2015