Western Farmers Electric Cooperative v. Sterling Planet Inc

Filing 23

ORDER denying 12 MOTION to Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses in Answer of Defendant, Sterling Planet, Inc.. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 02/12/2016. (jb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE,
Plaintiff,
v.
STERLING PLANET, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-864-D

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses in
Answer of Defendant Sterling Planet, Inc. [Doc. No. 12], filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(f). By its Motion, Plaintiff challenges the sufficiency of most of the 32 defenses listed
in Defendant’s original Answer [Doc. No. 10]. During the pendency of the Motion,
however, Plaintiff amended its pleading, and Defendant filed a new answer [Doc. No. 22],
which reduces the number of asserted defenses by more than half and adds factual allegations
to support some defenses that Plaintiff had challenged as insufficiently pleaded. In light of
these developments, and the principle that an amended pleading supersedes the original and
renders it of no legal effect,1 the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion directed at Defendant’s
original Answer is moot.

1

See Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp.. 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Predator Int’l, Inc.
v. Gamo Outdoor USA, Inc., 793 F.3d 1177, 1180-81 (10th Cir. 2015); Mink v. Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244, 1254
(10th Cir. 2007); Callahan v. Poppell, 471 F.3d 1155, 1161 (10th Cir. 2006).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Affirmative
Defenses in Answer of Defendant Sterling Planet, Inc. [Doc. No. 12] is DENIED without
prejudice to resubmission, if appropriate, in response to the Answer to Amended Complaint
[Doc. No. 22].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2016.

2