Weatherford International, LLC v. McKeachnie et al

Filing 51

MINUTE ORDER; Defendants Rule 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure toState a Claim on Which Relief May Be Granted 18 is DENIED as moot, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 8/26/15.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01320-MSK-KLM
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL , LLC, a Texas corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL MCKEACHNIE, an individual,
MARTIN HENLINE, an individual,
JONATHAN LONG, an individual,
SCOTT WILLIAMSON, an individual,
MICHAEL DEDMAN, an individual,
CASITY FILLINGIM, an individual,
JASON HOUSE, an individual,
JOSHUA JOHNSON, an individual, and
TROY VAVRA, an individual,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim on Which Relief May Be Granted [#18] (the “Motion”). Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint [#46]. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#18] 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dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”); Gotfredson v.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: August 26, 2015

-1-