Beavers et al v. Victorian et al

Filing 229

ORDER denying 111 Motion to Dismiss; denying 121 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 11/28/2012. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DAVID RODNEY BEAVERS, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
LENNIERE VICTORIAN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants,
)
)
and
)
)
GREAT WESTERN LEASING & SALES,
)
INC.,
)
)
Third Party Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JFM SERVICES, INC., et al.,
)
)
Third Party Defendants. )

Case No. CIV-11-1442-D

ORDER
On September 25, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, which supersedes
the First Amended Complaint. See Mink v. Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007). Certain
defendants had filed motions seeking dismissal or partial dismissal of the First Amended Complaint
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Def. Bee-Line Delivery Service, Inc.’s Partial Mot. Dism. [Doc.
No. 111]; Mot. Dism. of Defs. Gulf Delivery Sys., Inc. and Bee-Line Transp. Inc. [Doc. No. 121].
Subsequently, the movants filed motions in response to the Second Amended Complaint that simply
incorporate by reference their previous arguments. See Def. Bee-Line Delivery Service, Inc.’s
Partial Mot. Dism. [Doc. No. 155]; Defs. Gulf Delivery Sys., Inc. and Bee-Line Transp. Inc.’s Mot.
Dism. [Doc. No. 156]. Accordingly, because the movants’ arguments for dismissal will be
considered in ruling on subsequent motions, the Court finds their initial motions are moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Bee-Line Delivery Service, Inc.’s Partial
Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 111] and the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Gulf Delivery Systems,
Inc. [Doc. No. 121] are DENIED, as set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of November, 2012.

2