Paul T. Mak v. Theodore R. Dunham Jr., et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) PAUL T. MAK, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-248-SLP THEODORE R. DUNHAM JR., ) et al., Defendants. ) ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Paul T. Mak’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant Theodore R. Dunham Jr.’s (“Defendant’s”) counterclaims [Doc. No. 34]. Subsequent to the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 39] and Defendant filed an Answer and Amended Counterclaim [Doc. No. 43]. The Amended Counterclaim, which is now the operative document, supersedes the allegations contained in the original Counterclaim. See May v. Segovia, 929 F.3d 1223, 1229 (10th Cir. 2019). Thus, those allegations are of “no legal effect.” Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 34] is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of October, 2025.

SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE