From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Knight v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Pitkin of State

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Aug 15, 2011
Civil Case No. 11-cv-00565-REB-MJW (D. Colo. Aug. 15, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 11-cv-00565-REB-MJW

08-15-2011

TIMOTHY D. KNIGHT, Plaintiff, v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, LAURA LAUBAN, in her individual capacity, and BRIAN PETTET, in his individual capacity, Defendants.


Judge Robert E. Blackburn


ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Blackburn, J.

The matters before me are (1) Defendants The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Pitkin of the State of Colorado, Laura Laubhan and Brian Pettet's Motion To Dismiss the Seventh Claim for Relief of Plaintiff's Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial [#19] filed May 23, 2011; and (2) Defendant Pingree's Motion To Dismiss [#24] filed June 1, 2011. After the motions were filed, plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave To File Amended Complaint [#31] on June 30, 2011. The magistrate judge subsequently granted leave to file the amended complaint (Minute Order [#45] filed August 3, 2011), which amended complaint has now been docketed (Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial [#46] filed August 8, 2011).

"[#19]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's electronic case filing and management 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The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the superceded complaint.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 to dismiss are moot and will be denied without prejudice.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That Defendants The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Pitkin of the State of Colorado, Laura Laubhan and Brian Pettet's Motion To Dismiss the Seventh Claim for Relief of Plaintiff's Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial [#19] filed May 23, 2011, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot; and
2. That Defendant Pingree's Motion To Dismiss [#24] filed June 1, 2011, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.

Dated August 12, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Robert E. Blackburn

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Knight v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Pitkin of State

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Aug 15, 2011
Civil Case No. 11-cv-00565-REB-MJW (D. Colo. Aug. 15, 2011)
Case details for

Knight v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Pitkin of State

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY D. KNIGHT, Plaintiff, v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Aug 15, 2011

Citations

Civil Case No. 11-cv-00565-REB-MJW (D. Colo. Aug. 15, 2011)