Holland v. Kutz

W.D. Oklahoma

Holland v. Kutz

DecidedMarch 11, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00233

StatusUnknown

This text of Holland v. Kutz (Holland v. Kutz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holland v. Kutz, (W.D. Okla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

MICHAEL HOLLAND, an individual, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-00233-JD ) 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. )

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. 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. W. DISHMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

MICHAEL HOLLAND, an individual, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-00233-JD ) 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. )

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. 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. W. DISHMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Holland v. Kutz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-v-kutz-okwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack