Tucker v. Oklahoma City City of et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 12 Motion to Dismiss; denying 16 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 10/12/2011. (mb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTOPHER L. TUCKER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-11-922-D

ORDER
Currently pending before the Court are the Motion of Defendant City of Oklahoma
City to Dismiss It From Plaintiff’s Requests for Punitive Damages and State Law Claims
[Doc. No. 12] and the Partial Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Bemo, Brown, Nelson,
Cooper and Blumenthal [Doc. No. 16]. After these motions were filed, however, Plaintiff
filed the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 19], which supersedes his prior 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). Thus, all motions directed at the Complaint are moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions [Doc. Nos. 12 and 16] are
DENIED without prejudice to refiling, if appropriate, in response to the amended pleading.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of October, 2011.