Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Apache Tribe of Oklahoma

Filing 43

ORDER Accepting Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and denying as moot 21 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 7/19/2011. (mb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WELLS FARGO BANK,
National Association,
Plaintiff,
v.
APACHE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-11-648-D

ORDER
On July 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed a pleading denominated its “Amended Complaint” in this
case. Although this filing purports to be an amended pleading that may be filed as a matter of right
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), and although the filing was timely made under that rule, the Court finds
that the pleading is not an amendment to the Complaint but is actually a supplemental pleading filed
without authorization, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Although Plaintiff’s new pleading
continues to seek declaratory and injunctive relief, it bears little resemblance to the original
Complaint, which sought to enjoin a pending tribal proceeding that was subsequently concluded.
Instead, Plaintiff’s new pleading concerns events that occurred after the Complaint was filed, and
replaces Defendant Apache Tribe of Oklahoma with eight defendants who are members of the
Apache Business Committee and the Apache Gaming Commission. Plaintiff now complains of
actions taken by the Apache Business Committee and the Apache Gaming Commission during the
pendency of this case. However, upon examination of the pleadings and the case record, particularly
in light of the concession of mootness made at the hearing held on June 14, 2011, the Court
authorizes the filing of a supplemental pleading. The case shall proceed upon the Amended
Complaint.

In light of these developments, the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Apache Tribe of
Oklahoma (the “Tribe”), which is no longer named as a party, is moot. “An amended complaint
supersedes a prior complaint ‘and renders it of no legal effect.’” Mooring Capital Fund, LLC v.
Knight, 388 F. App’x 814, 823 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515,
1517 (10th Cir. 1991)); see also Franklin v. Kansas Dep’t of Corr., 160 F. App’x 730, 734 (10th
Cir. 2005). By removing the Tribe as a defendant and abandoning claims previously asserted against
it, Plaintiff has effected a voluntary dismissal of the Tribe from the action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is accepted, and the
Apache Tribe of Oklahoma’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 21] is DENIED as moot. Whether the
Tribe should, or must, be a party to the instant action asserting claims against various tribal officials
is not presented for determination on the basis of the current status of the pleadings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate the Apache Tribe of
Oklahoma as a defendant in the case in light of the Amended Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of July, 2011.

2