Oaster v. Robertson

Filing 16

MINUTE ORDER; On or before May 29, 2015, Plaintiff shall file aNotice on the docket informing the Court under which rule the Amended Complaint was filed and shall attach to that Notice the exhibit required by D.C.COLO.LCiv.R 15.1. Defendant shall re spond to the Amended Complaint 14 days after the Notice is filed. 6 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6) and Request for Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED as moot, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 5/21/15.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00871-KLM
BRADLEY D. OASTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
STANLEY ROBERTSON,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [#14]. As an
initial matter, the Amended Complaint does not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1, which
requires that an amended complaint filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) or 15(b) “attach
as an exhibit a copy of the amended pleading which strikes through . . . the text to be
deleted and underlines . . . the text to be added.” The Motion is subject to denial on this
basis alone. Nevertheless, in the interest of expedience, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave
to file the redline required by Rule 15.1 separately from the Amended Complaint. In
addition, because it is unclear to the Court if the Amended Complaint was filed pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) or 15(b),
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before May 29, 2015, Plaintiff shall file a
Notice on the docket informing the Court under which rule the Amended Complaint was
filed and shall attach to that Notice the exhibit required by D.C.COLO.LCiv.R 15.1.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall respond to the Amended
Complaint 14 days after the Notice is filed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6) and Request for Evidentiary Hearing [#6] 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a motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”); AJB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. Apr. 28, 2009) (finding that amended complaint superseded original complaint and
1

“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: May 21, 2015

2