Summary
noting that a plaintiff may not craft an operative pleading by weaving various documents together, but that an amended complaint must include all arguments against all defendants
Summary of this case from Luck v. Sergeant Smith, Co.Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01936-MSK-BNB.
December 16, 2010
ORDER
This matter arises on the plaintiff's Verified Motion for Leave to Supplement and Amend Complaint [Doc. # 57, filed 12/10/2010] (the "Motion to Amend"), which is DENIED without prejudice.
The plaintiff admits that he failed to confer with the defendants prior to filing the Motion to Amend, claiming that such an effort would be futile. Motion to Amend [Doc. # 57] at p. 1. Local rule of practice 7.1A, D.C.COLO.LCivR, is unequivocal:
The court will not consider any motion , other than a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party, or a pro se party, before filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good-faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter.
(Emphasis added.) The plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 7.1A is fatal to the Motion to Amend.
In addition, the plaintiff failed to attach a proposed amended complaint to the Motion to Amend. I will not grant a motion to amend in the abstract.
Finally, "an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect." Mink v. Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted). Consequently, the plaintiff must include in any proposed amended complaint all of the claims against all of the defendants which he intends to raise. The plaintiff may not incorporate by reference any claims or supporting allegations submitted in a prior pleading.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Amend[Doc. # 57] is DENIED without prejudice, subject to renewal in compliance with this order.
Dated December 16, 2010.