Hollingsworth v. McDonald
MINUTE ORDER; Defendant's 16 Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is DENIED as moot, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 10/9/15.(morti, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03484-MSK-KLM
TYLENE E. HOLLINGSWORTH, an individual,
ROBERT A. MCDONALD, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) [#16] (the “Motion”). Subsequent to the filing of this Motion, Plaintiff filed
an Amended Complaint [#28], to which Defendant filed an Answer [#33]. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#16] 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dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”); AJB Props., Ltd.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April 28, 2009) (finding that amended complaint superseded original complaint and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: October 9, 2015
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?