Laurienti et al v. Colorado Child Support Enforcement Division et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying as moot 4 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 5 Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify; denying as moot 23 Motion to Dismiss Party ; granting 28 Motion to Amend and the Clerk of the Court is directed to accept for filing the Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 01/06/15.(nmarb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02592-BNB
WILLIAM J. LAURIENTI, and
PATRICIA A. LAURIENTI,
Plaintiffs,
v.
REGGIE BICHA, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Human Services,
KATHY NESBITT, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Personnel and Administration,
PAULETTE ST. JAMES, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division, Colorado Department
of Human Services, and
SANDRA ANDERSON, Paralegal, Mesa County Child Support Enforcement Unit,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the following:
(1)

Defendants Mesa County Child Support Enforcement Unit and Sandra

Anderson’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint [Doc. # 4, filed 9/18/2014] (the “County
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss”);
(2)

Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and

Memorandum of Law In Support [Doc. # 5, filed 9/18/2014] (the “Second Motion to
Amend”);
(3)

Defendant Mesa County Child Support Enforcement Unit’s Motion for

Dismissal [Doc. # 23, filed 12/4/2014] (the “Mesa County’s Motion to Dismiss”); and
(4)

The plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to File Amended Complaint [Doc. # 28,

filed 12/23/2014] (the “Unopposed Motion to Amend”).

Rule 15(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that, other than as allowed under Rule 15(a)(1),
“a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s
leave” and that amendment should be allowed “freely . . . when justice so requires.” Although
all parties have not consented in writing to the Unopposed Motion to Amend, it is nonetheless
unopposed. Filing of the Amended Complaint [Doc. # 28-2] will render moot the remaining
motions.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1)

The Unopposed Motion to Amend [Doc. # 28] is GRANTED, and the Clerk of the

Court is directed to accept for filing the Amended Complaint [Doc. # 28-2].
(2)

The County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 4], plaintiffs’ Second Motion

to Amend [Doc. # 5], and Mesa County’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 23] are DENIED as moot.
(3)

The case caption is modified as indicated above.

(4)

The status conference set for tomorrow (January 7, 2015) at 4:00 p.m., shall

proceed as scheduled with all counsel appearing in person. Counsel shall be prepared to execute
the Consent Form, either consenting or not to have the case proceed before a magistrate judge
for all proceedings, including trial, and to order the entry of a final judgment.
Dated January 6, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2