Russell-Webster v. Raimondo

W.D. Oklahoma

Russell-Webster v. Raimondo

DecidedApril 19, 2023

Docket5:22-cv-01074

StatusUnknown

This text of Russell-Webster v. Raimondo (Russell-Webster v. Raimondo) 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

Russell-Webster v. Raimondo, (W.D. Okla. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA CAROLYN RUSSELL-WEBSTER, ) Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CIV-22-1074-D GINA RAIMONDO, Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce, _) Defendant. ORDER Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No. 12]. In response to the Motion, Plaintiff has timely filed an amended pleading as authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). This amendment “supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.” Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation omitted); 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, Defendant’s Motion is moot. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 12] is DENIED without prejudice to resubmission, as appropriate, in response to the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 13]. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19" day of April, 2023.

LD Q- OPE TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief 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 CAROLYN RUSSELL-WEBSTER, ) Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CIV-22-1074-D GINA RAIMONDO, Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce, _) Defendant. ORDER Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No. 12]. In response to the Motion, Plaintiff has timely filed an amended pleading as authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). This amendment “supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.” Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation omitted); 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, Defendant’s Motion is moot. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 12] is DENIED without prejudice to resubmission, as appropriate, in response to the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 13]. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19" day of April, 2023.

LD Q- OPE TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Russell-Webster v. Raimondo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-webster-v-raimondo-okwd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack