Sardina et al v. Charles et al

Filing 118

MINUTE ORDER; Defendant's 57 Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and the Plaintiff's 74 Motion to Strike Defendants Reply in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 72] Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) and REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.C.1-3 are DENIED as moot, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/17/16.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00054-REB-KLM
MARISOL SARDINA, also known as Alejandra Arredondo,
COLUMBA RODRIGUEZ, also known as Anabel Echeverria,
MARGARITA HERRERA, also known as Jessica Gonzalez,
ALBERTO ECHEVERRIA, also known as Jesus F. Gonzalez,
MARGARITA LOPEZ,
ANGELICA LUGO,
BLANCA AVILA, also known as Rosa Medina,
PATRICIA ALEJANDRE GARCIA, also known as Ana Moncada,
JESSICA MORALES TAVERA,
MARIA QUINONES, also known as Karime Dominguez,
ROSAURA ZAVALA, also known as Alejandra Gutierrez,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
LORENA ESTRADA,
CLIFF PETE, and
TWIN ARCHES PARTNERSHIP, LTD,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Second
Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) [#57] (the “Motion to Dismiss);
and on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Reply in Support of Their Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 72] Pursuant to
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d) and REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.C.1-3 [#74] (the “Motion to
Strike”). Based on the Court’s pending Recommendation that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave
to Amend Their Second Amended Complaint [#104] should be granted in part and denied
in part,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss [#57] and the Motion to Strike
[#74] are DENIED as moot. See, e.g., Strich v. United States, No. 09-cv-01913-REB-KLM,
-1-

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and superseded.”); AJB Props., Ltd.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superseded original complaint and “accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the original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”).1
Dated: February 17, 2016

1

The Motion to Dismiss is moot notwithstanding Defendants’ statement to the contrary.
See Response [#110] at 3 (“To be clear, the changes do not render Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
moot.”). Defendants affirmatively state that “Plaintiffs’ proposed changes relate to and apparently
concede certain of Defendants’ arguments.” Id. Even aside from the above-cited authority holding
that a motion to dismiss aimed at a non-operative complaint is moot, it is not the Court’s
responsibility to sort through Defendants’ arguments aimed at the initial Complaint and attempt to
discern which arguments are or are not still applicable in light of the new allegations asserted by
Plaintiffs. After a ruling by the District Judge on the Recommendation, Defendants may answer or
otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint as permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

-2-