Voll v. Long Building Technologies, Inc.

Filing 21

MINUTE ORDER; 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall accept Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [#19-1] for filing as of the date of this Minute Order. 15 Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/23/16.(morti, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 15-cv-01458-MSK-KLM ELIZABETH VOLL, Plaintiff, v. LONG BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss [#15] (the “Motion to Dismiss”) and on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [#19] (the “Motion to Amend”). Plaintiff filed this lawsuit as a pro se litigant. See Compl. [#1]. Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss [#15] on December 3, 2015. On February 16, 2016, an attorney entered an appearance on Plaintiff’s behalf. See [#18]. On February 18, 2016, the present Motion to Amend [#19] was filed. Given that Plaintiff has not yet requested to amend the Complaint, and given that a Scheduling Conference has not yet been held and a deadline for joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings has not been set, the Court finds that amendment should be permitted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (stating that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires”). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend [#19] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall accept Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [#19-1] for filing as of the date of this Minute Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [#15] 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(“The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”); AJB Props., Ltd.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 Apr. 28, 2009) (finding that amended complaint superseded original complaint and “accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint is denied as moot”); Gotfredson v. Larsen LP, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1163,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: February 23, 2016

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?