Intelligent Designs 2000 Corporation v. CCM Assembly & Manufacturing Inc.

Filing 37

MINUTE ORDER; Plaintiffs 28 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and 29 Unopposed Motion to Substitute Attachments to a Prior Motion [Doc. No. 28] are GRANTED. Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint with Jury Demand [#29-2] for filing as of the date of this Minute Order. 12 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/30/15.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01609-MSK-KLM
INTELLIGENT DESIGNS 2000 CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
CCM ASSEMBLY & MANUFACTURING, INC., doing business as BajaRack Adventure
Equipment, a California company,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
First Amended Complaint [#28]1 (the “Motion to Amend”), Plaintiff Intelligent Designs
2000 Corporation’s Unopposed Motion to Substitute Attachments to a Prior Motion
[Doc. No. 28] [#29] (the “Motion to Substitute”), and Defendant CCM Assembly &
Manufacturing, Inc[.]’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Intelligent
Designs 2000 Corporation’s Claims for Indirect and Willful Infringement [#12] (the
“Motion to Dismiss”).
The Motion to Substitute informs the Court that Plaintiff “inadvertently filed as
attachments” to the Motion to Amend “a redline and clean version . . . of an earlier draft of
the First Amended Complaint . . . .” Motion to Substitute [#29] at 1. Plaintiff attaches the
correct versions of these documents and asks the Court to substitute them for the versions
attached to the Motion to Amend. Both motions are unopposed. The Court finds good
cause to grant the Motion to Substitute and finds that the Motion to Amend should be
granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) because Plaintiff states that Defendant
“provided its written consent . . . .” to the requested relief. Motion to Amend [#28] at 1.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend [#28] and the Motion to
Substitute [#29] are GRANTED. Accordingly,

1

“[#28]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to
a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I
use this convention throughout this Minute Order.

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint with Jury Demand [#29-2] for filing as of the date of this Minute Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to
the First Amended Complaint with Jury Demand in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [#12] 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: December 30, 2015

2