Opinion
Civil Case No. 11-cv-00163-REB-KMT
09-09-2011
MARK CHIPMAN, Plaintiff, v. ASPENBIO PHARMA, INC., a Colorado corporation, Defendant.
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are (1) defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion To Dismiss [#3] filed January 24, 2011; and (2) defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion To Strike Portions of the Plaintiff's Complaint [#4] filed January 24, 2011. After the motions were filed, plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave To Amend Complaint [#19] on September 7, 2011. The magistrate judge subsequently granted leave to file the amended complaint (Minute Order [#22] filed September 7, 2011), which has now been docketed (Plaintiff Mark Chipman's First Amended Complaint [#23] filed September 7, 2011).
"[#3]" 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 order.
The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the superceded complaint. See Griggs v. Jornayvaz, 2009 WL 1464408 at *1 (D. Colo. May 22, 2009); United States ex rel. Babb v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 2007 WL 1793795 at *1 (D. Colo. June 19, 2007). Therefore, the motions are moot and will be denied without prejudice on that basis.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion To Dismiss [#3] filed January 24, 2011, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot; and
2. That defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion To Strike Portions of the Plaintiff's Complaint [#4] filed January 24, 2011, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.
Dated September 9, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
Robert E. Blackburn
United States District Judge