PURZEL VIDEO GMBH v. DOES 1-44

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Doe 34's Motion to Quash 11 is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Does 1-2, Does 4-17, 19-36, 37-39, 42-44 are DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 6/25/13. (LAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

)
)
PURZEL VIDEO GMBH,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ROBERT KRAMKOWSKI, BILL MARLER, )
AND EARL MCCANN,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. 4:12-CV-2015 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On October 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint under the Copyright Act against Does 144. (ECF No. 1). On February 25, 2013, Doe 34 filed a letter, which the Court interpreted as a
motion to quash the subpoena and/or to litigate the case anonymously. (ECF No. 11). On June
24, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint (ECF No.
17).

The Amended Complaint is against only three named defendants: Robert Kramkowski

(f/k/a Doe 18), Bill Marler (f/k/a Doe 37) and Earl McCann (f/k/a Doe 40). As the Amended
Complaint supersedes the original Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff is proceeding against only
these three named defendants. See In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir.
2000)(“an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original
complaint without legal effect”).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Doe 34’s Motion to Quash [11] is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Does 1-2, Does 4-17, 19-36, 37-39, 42-44 are
DISMISSED.1
Dated this 25th day of June, 2013.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

This Court previously dismissed Does 3 and 41 upon Plaintiff’s Motions. (ECF Nos. 14, 16).
-2-