Muragara v. Moneygram Payment System International

Filing 41

MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 27 Motion to Dismiss, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 11/13/2015.(slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00939-MEH
JECKONIAS N. MURAGARA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONEYGRAM PAYMENT SYSTEM INTERNATIONAL,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 13, 2015.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [docket #40], properly filed as a matter
of course pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In light of this filing, Defendant’s recently filed Motion
to Dismiss [filed October 27, 2015; docket #27] is denied as moot with leave to re-file, if Defendant
so chooses, in response to the Amended Complaint. See Franklin v. Kansas Dep’t of Corr., 160 F.
App’x 730, 734 (10th Cir. 2005) (“An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and
renders the original complaint of no legal effect.”) (citing Miller v. Glanz, 948 F. 2d 1562, 1565
(10th Cir. 1991)); see also Robinson v. Dean Foods Co., No. 08-cv-01186-REB-CBS, 2009 WL
723329, at *4 (D. Colo. Mar. 18, 2009) (citation omitted) (“Generally, when an amended complaint
is filed, the previous complaint is wiped out and the operative complaint is the most recently filed
version.”).