Holland v. Kutz et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying as moot 3 Motion for TRO and without prejudice to resubmission. Plaintiff should, however, satisfy the Court it has subject-matter jurisdiction before refiling. Signed by Judge Jodi W. Dishman on 3/11/25. (rp)

Case 5:25-cv-00233-JD

Document 8

Filed 03/11/25

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL HOLLAND, an individual, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JUSTIN KUTZ, an individual;
)
CHRISTOPHER BALESTRINO, an
)
individual; CROSS COUNTRY
)
EXPRESS, LLC, a Wisconsin limited )
liability company; and MADISON ONE )
CAPITAL, LLC, a Nevada limited
)
liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-25-00233-JD

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”). [Doc. No. 3]. The Motion seeks a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction against Defendants. It was filed in
connection with the original complaint.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(1). [Doc. No. 5]. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint “supersedes the original
[complaint] and renders it of no legal effect.” Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515,
1517 (10th Cir. 1991); see 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, the Motion is moot.
The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Doc.

Case 5:25-cv-00233-JD

Document 8

Filed 03/11/25

Page 2 of 2

No. 3] is DENIED as moot and without prejudice to resubmission. Plaintiff should,
however, satisfy the Court it has subject-matter jurisdiction before refiling.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of March 2025.

2