Zon LED LLC v. Power Partners Inc et al

Filing 40

ORDER denying as moot 39 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; denying 15 Motion to Dismiss; denying 30 Motion to Dismiss; denying 31 Motion to Transfer Case. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 1/31/17. (ml)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THEWESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ZON LED, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
POWER PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIVB16-1090-D

ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant Inventronics USA, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc.
No. 15] and Defendant Power Partners, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim [Doc. No. 30]. Both challenge the sufficiency of
Plaintiff’s Complaint. On January 26, 2017, however, Plaintiff filed an amended pleading.
The Amended Complaint supersedes Plaintiff’s 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
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. Thus, all motions for dismissal
directed at the Complaint are moot.
Further, Defendant Power Partners, Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a) [Doc. No. 31] is presented only as an alternative to dismissal, based on the
allegations of the original Complaint. The Court finds that this motion is premature at this
time.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions [Do. Nos. 15, 30 & 31]
are DENIED without prejudice to resubmission, as appropriate, in response to the Amended
Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond to Power Partner’s Motions to Dismiss and Transfer [Doc. No. 39] is DENIED as
moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2017.

2