Devoe v. Broaddus et al
Filing
83
MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 7 , 16 , and 28 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 11/23/09.(ebs, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 09-cv-00711-PAB-BNB DEBRA KAY DEVOE, Plaintiff, v. MARK BROADDUS, in his individual capacity as Warden, SUSAN ROBERTS, in her individual capacity as CNM, NP, JENNIFER COUNTRYMAN-TRUJILLO, in her individual capacity as RN, YVETTE MARTINEZ-HOCHBERG, M.D., in her individual capacity as Physician, SERGEANT CHERIE SANCHEZ, in her individual capacity, SERGEANT TOU LO, in his individual capacity, PATRICK POLLEY, in his individual capacity, ABEL RAZO, in his individual capacity, ROXANNE BARCA, in her individual capacity, MUSHAFAU KUKOYI, in his individual capacity, DANTE BLANTON, in his individual capacity, PAMELA DANIELLE, in her individual capacity, DANIEL SULLIVAN, in his individual capacity, CHANTAY BANKS, in her individual capacity, PER DIEM MEDICAL STAFFING, INC., DANIEL PETERSEN, R.N., in his individual capacity, and SUPPLEMENTAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES LIMITED INC., d/b/a Supplemental Health Care, Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer This matter is before the Court on defendant Mark Broaddus's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 7], defendant Jennifer Countryman's Motions to Dismiss [Docket No. 16] and defendant Yvette Martinez-Hochberg's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 28]. On November 13, 2009, plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint [Docket No. 80] pursuant to the Order [Docket No. 79] granting plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 74]. Thus, the Third Amended Complaint became the operative pleading in this action, and the Motions to Dismiss [Docket Nos. 7, 16 and 28] are directed to an inoperative, superseded pleading. See, e.g., Gilles v. United States, 906 F.2d 1386,
1389 (10th Cir. 1990) ("a pleading that has been amended under Rule 15(a) supersedes the pleading it modifies") (internal quotation marks omitted). As such, the motions to dismiss are moot. It is ORDERED that defendants' Motions to Dismiss [Docket Nos. 7, 16 and 28] are DENIED as moot. DATED November 23, 2009.
2
]]>
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?
