Baxter v. Baxter

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Oklahoma
• Decided: September 14, 2022
• Docket: 22-01045
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Lo OD, □□ Q) qo < 7 Ne Dated: September 14, 2022 2 Sere . s : Baa □□□ □ The following is ORDERED: Ow MIE

Janice D. Loyd U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA In re: ) ) Summer D. Baxter, ) Case No. 22-10877-JDL ) Ch.7 Debtor. ) ) Dustin Baxter, ) ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) Adv. No. 22-1045-JDL ) Summer D. Baxter, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Adversary Complaint filed on August 15, 2022. [Doc. 3]. The motion to dismiss was directed at the Plaintiff's Complaint filed on August 1, 2022. [Doc. 1]. On August 18, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. [Doc. 4]. Plaintiff was permitted to file his Amended Complaint as a matter of course, without leave of court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

Defendant has not filed a motion to dismiss directed at the Amended Complaint. “The filing of an amended complaint moots a motion to dismiss directed at the complaint that is supplanted and superseded.” Edwards v. Hanuman Corporation, 2022 WL 1156639, at *1 (D. N.M. 2022) (quoting Strich v. United States, 2010 WL 148269, at

*1 (D. Colo. 2010). Here, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint supersedes his original Complaint. As such, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the original complaint is directed at an inoperative pleading, rendering it moot. See, e.g., Fawzy v. Wauquiez Boats SNC, 873 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2017) (“Because a properly filed amended complaint supersedes the original one and becomes the operative complaint in the case, it renders the original complaint ‘of no effect.’”); AJB Properties, Ltd. v. Zarda Bar-B-Q of Lenexa, LLC, 2009 WL 1140185, at *1 (D. Kan. 2009) (finding that an amended complaint superseded the original complaint and accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss the original complaint is denied as moot); Gotfredson v. Larsen LP, 432 F.Supp.2d 1163, 1172 (D. Colo. 2006) (noting that

defendants’ motions to dismiss are “technically moot because they [were] directed at a pleading that is no longer operative”); Rodriguez v. Xerox Business Services, LLC, 2016 WL 8674378, at *1 (W.D. Texas 2016) (“A plaintiff’s filing of an amended complaint may render moot a pending motion to dismiss.”). Accordingly, Defendant Summer Baxter’s Motion to Dismiss Adversary Complaint [Doc. 3] is STRICKEN AS MOOT. # # #