Lopez v. Next Generation Construction & Environmental, LLC et al

Filing 22

MINUTE ORDER; 15 Motion for More Definite Statement of the Class and Collective Action Complaint is DENIED as moot, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 5/5/16.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00076-CMA-KLM
RICARDO LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEXT GENERATION CONSTRUCTION & ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company, and
CAMRON LENTE,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite
Statement of the Class and Collective Action Complaint [#15] (the “Motion”). Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course
within . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule [12(e)] . . . .” On April 19, 2016,
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [#18], twenty-one days after the Motion [#15] was
filed. Because the Amended Complaint was timely filed as a matter of course in response
to the Motion [#15], and because the Amended Complaint supersedes the Complaint,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#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dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.”); AJB Props., Ltd.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.
April 28, 2009) (finding that amended complaint superseded original complaint and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 are “technically moot because they are directed at a pleading that is
no longer operative”).
Dated: May 5, 2016