Schmaltz v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation et al
Filing
63
ORDER denying as moot 24 Motion to Dismiss Monitoring and Class Claims filed by defendant. Signed by Judge Walker D. Miller on 12/1/08.(gms, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO SENIOR JUDGE WALKER D. MILLER Civil Action No. 08-cv-00119-WDM-MEH RAE ANN SCHMALTZ, Plaintiff, v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION D/B/A GLAXOSMITHKLINE, Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS Miller, J. This matter is before me on the Motion to Dismiss Monitoring and Class Claims (doc no 24) filed by Defendant. Defendant sought to dismiss certain claims contained in the Amended Complaint. However, after the motion to dismiss was filed, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (doc no 46), which does not contain the claims at issue in the motion. Because the Second Amended Complaint supersedes the Amended Complaint, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Monitoring and Class Claims (doc no 24) is denied as moot. DATED at Denver, Colorado, on December 1, 2008. BY THE COURT:
s/ Walker D. Miller United States Senior District Judge
PDF FINAL
]]>
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?
