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, )

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a motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”); AJB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 Apr. 28, 2009) (finding that amended complaint superseded original complaint and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