Lusk v. Midland Credit Management Inc

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA COURTNEY LUSK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CASE NO: CV-24-381-R Vv. ) ) MIDLAND CREDIT ) MANAGEMENT, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 14]. During the pendency of the Motion, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [Doc. 15]. The Amended Complaint “supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.” Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10 Cir. 1991) (internal quotation omitted). Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 14] is therefore DENIED without prejudice to resubmission, 1f appropriate. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11" day of July, 2024.

DAVID L. RUSSELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE