T2 Technologies, Inc. v. Windstream Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 27

MINUTE ORDER accepting 23 Notice of Filing of Amended Pleading by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 3/4/15. 14 Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot. (dkals, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 14-cv-03151-MSK-KLM T2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. WINDSTEAM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and MCLEOD USA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, LLC, an Iowa limited liability company doing business as PAETEC Business Services, LLC, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s [sic] T2 Technologies, Inc.’s Notice of Filing of Amended Pleading [#23]1 (the “Notice”), Plaintiff’s Status Report [#26] (the “Status Report”), and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#14] (the “Motion to Dismiss”). On February 26, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to “file a status report informing the Court whether its proposed amendments to the Complaint are opposed.” Minute Order [#24] at 2. In the Status Report, Plaintiff states that it filed the Notice [#23] and proposed Amended Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial [#23-2] (the “Amended Complaint”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) and that “Defendants have advised counsel for Plaintiff that Defendants do not object to the amended complaint.” Status Report [#26] at 1. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [#23-2] for filing as of the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [#14] is DENIED 1 “[#23]” 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. 1 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(“The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”); AJB Props., Ltd.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: March 4, 2015 2

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?