Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02973-WYD-KLM.
January 19, 2011
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend [Docket No. 17; Filed January 18, 2011] (the "Motion"). The Court recently set a deadline for Plaintiff to file a Response to the Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 16]. Rather than file a Response, Plaintiff apparently has opted to file an Amended Complaint, which has been docketed under the title "Motion to Amend." Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) "[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) [or] (e). . . ." As Plaintiff has not previously amended his Complaint and as the Amended Complaint was filed within twenty-one days of service of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint as a matter of course. To the extent that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint has been titled and docketed as a Motion,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is accepted for filing.
Plaintiff is reminded of his obligation to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. and provide a certification that he conferred with opposing counsel prior to filing any motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall change the title of the Motion to "Amended Complaint."
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that due to the filing of an Amended Complaint, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 8] 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("The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded."); AJB Props., Ltd.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 April 28, 2009) (finding that amended complaint superseded original complaint and "accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss the original complaint is denied as moot"); Gotfredson v. Larsen LP, 432 F.Supp.2d 1163,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 to dismiss are "technically moot because they are directed at a pleading that is no longer operative").
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint [Docket No. 17] on or before February 7, 2011.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that other than responding to any motion filed by Defendants, Plaintiff shall not file any pleadings until given leave to do so by the Court.
Dated: January 19, 2011