Riggin v. Woodford et al

Filing 28

MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 4 Motion to Dismiss; granting 25 Plaintiff's Opposed Amended Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 02/24/16.(nmarb, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 15-cv-01503-REB-KLM KURT RIGGEN, Chief of the Ki Kiallus Indian Nation, Plaintiff, v. JEAN WOODFORD, Judge, and THOMAS VANCE, Judge, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#4] and on Plaintiff’s Opposed Amended Motion Pursuant to FRCP Rule 15(a) for Leave to File Amended Complaint [#25] (the “Motion to Amend”). Given that Plaintiff has not yet been permitted to amend his Complaint, that a Scheduling Conference has not yet been held, and that a deadline for amendment of pleadings and joinder of parties has not yet been set, the Court finds that permitting amendment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [#25] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall accept Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [#25-1] as of the date of this Minute Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#4] 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(“The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”); AJB Props., Ltd.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 Apr. 28, 2009) (finding that amended complaint superseded original complaint and “accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint is denied as moot”); Gotfredson v. Larsen LP, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1163,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 24, 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?