Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03231-REB-KLM
02-21-2013
MINUTE ORDER
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint [Docket No. 30; Filed February 20, 2013] (the "Motion to Amend"); on Defendants John Miles Flesche, Adrian Keith Criswell, Anne Mansfield, and John Suthers' State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 18; Filed January 28, 2013]; on Defendant Brian Berardini's Motin to Dismiss [Docket No. 20; Filed January 29, 2013]; and on Defendants Mitchell R. Morrissey, Jeffrey Watts, Robert Fuller, Rebekah Melnick, and Lara Mullin's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 24; Filed February 1, 2013]. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff may amend his pleading once as a matter of course "within . . . 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) . . . ." Plaintiff has submitted his First Amended Complaint within this period. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Amend [#30] is GRANTED. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint [#30-1] is accepted for filing as of the date of this Minute Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those Defendants who have already been served and entered their appearances in this case shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint [#30-1] on or before March 14, 2013.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [#18, #20, #24] are 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("The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded."); AJB Props., Ltd.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 Apr. 28, 2009) (finding that amended complaint superseded original complaint and "accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss the original complaint is denied as moot"); Gotfredson v. Larsen LP, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1163,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").