Tytanic v. Blue Sky Bio LLC et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying re 8 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Albert Zickmann, 21 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Christopher A Tytanic, denying 13 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Sheldon A Lerner, striking 22 MOTION for Order P rohibiting a Reply by Co-defendant Sheldon A. Lerner, DDS to Plaintiff Christopher A. Tytanic's Response to Defendant Sheldon A. Lerner, DDS Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Petition, or Alternatively Motion for Summary Jud filed by Christopher A Tytanic, striking 18 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Christopher A Tytanic. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 10/28/2016. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTOPHER A. TYTANIC,
Plaintiff,
v.
BLUE SKY BIO, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-1107-D

ORDER
Following removal of this case from state court, both of the individual defendants
moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s petition.

During the pendency of the motions, Plaintiff filed

an Amended Complaint as authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(a).

This amendment

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); Callahan v. Poppell, 471 F.3d 1155, 1161 (10th Cir.
2006).

Thus, all motions directed at the petition are moot.
Plaintiff has filed response briefs in opposition to the motions.

He has also filed a

motion asking to the Court to prohibit one defendant from filing a reply brief.

These

filings were unnecessary.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Albert Zickmann’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition [Doc. No. 8] and the Motion to Dismiss Defendant Sheldon
A. Lerner [Doc. No. 13] are DENIED as moot, without prejudice to refiling a motion

directed at the Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s response briefs [Doc. Nos. 18 and 21]

and Plaintiff’s Motion to Prohibit a Reply by Co-Defendant Sheldon A. Lerner [Doc.
No. 22] are STRICKEN from the case record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of October, 2016.

2