Vanlandingham v. Oklahoma City City of

Opinion

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

CHARLES KALEB VANLANDINGHAM, ) Administrator for the Estate of Charles ) Lamar Vanlandingham, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. CIV-22-209-D v. ) ) CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Brandon Lee’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. No. 42] under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The Motion challenges the sufficiency of the Second Amended Complaint to state a claim against Defendant Lee. After the Motion was filed, Plaintiff was authorized to further amend his pleading and filed the Third Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 45]. “[A]n amended pleading supersedes the pleading it modifies.” Predator Int’l, Inc. v. Gamo Outdoor USA, Inc., 793 F.3d 1177, 1180-81 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gilles v. United States, 906 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir. 1990) (en banc)); see Mink v. Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (“amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect”). Accordingly, Defendant Lee’s Motion directed at the Second Amended Complaint is moot. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Brandon Lee’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. No. 42] is DENIED without prejudice to a new motion, if appropriate, in response to the Third Amended Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18" day of November, 2022.

Ny Q. TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge