Walker et al v. BuildDirect.com Technologies Inc et al
Filing
20
ORDER finding as moot 14 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 15 Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 9/20/2011. (mb, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ERIC WALKER, et al,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BUILDDIRECT.COM TECHNOLOGIES, )
INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Case No. CIV-11-800-D
ORDER
Before the Court are BuildDirect.com Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Class
Action Complaint [Doc. No. 14] and Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss [Doc.
No. 15]. Both challenge the sufficiency of the Class Action Complaint to permit Plaintiffs
to proceed with a civil action in this Court. However, on September 19, 2011, Plaintiffs
timely filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint [Doc. No. 18].1 This amendment
supersedes Plaintiffs’ original pleading and renders it of no legal effect. See Davis v. TXO
Prod. Corp.. 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Mink v. Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244,
1254 (10th Cir. 2007); Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1565 (10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly,
Defendant’s Motions directed at Plaintiffs’ original pleading are moot.
1
A plaintiff may amend as a matter of right within 21 days after service of a Rule 12(b) motion or
a responsive pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motions [Doc. Nos. 14 and 15] are
DENIED without prejudice to resubmission, if appropriate, in response to the amended
pleading.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of September, 2011.
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?