Vu v. Gibson

W.D. Oklahoma

Vu v. Gibson

DecidedAugust 13, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00426

StatusUnknown

This text of Vu v. Gibson (Vu v. Gibson) 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

Vu v. Gibson, (W.D. Okla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

LICH THANH VU; and LAN THUY ) NGUYEN VU, personally and as ) the guardian of LICH THANH VU, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-00426-JD ) JOSEPH D. GIBSON; and CITY OF ) OKLAHOMA CITY, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Joseph D. Gibson’s Partial Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 23], directed at Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 13]. On August 8, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 26]. Following this Court’s order [Doc. No. 27], the parties conferred. Based on the parties’ conference, Plaintiffs have filed their Second Amended Complaint with the opposing party’s written consent. See [Doc. No. 28]; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint “supersedes the original [and previously amended complaints] and renders [them] of no legal effect.” Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991). See also 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). Consequently, the Court DENIES as moot and without prejudice Defendant Joseph D. Gibson’s Partial Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 23]. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3) governs the deadlines for any required response to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of August 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

LICH THANH VU; and LAN THUY ) NGUYEN VU, personally and as ) the guardian of LICH THANH VU, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-00426-JD ) JOSEPH D. GIBSON; and CITY OF ) OKLAHOMA CITY, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Joseph D. Gibson’s Partial Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 23], directed at Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 13]. On August 8, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 26]. Following this Court’s order [Doc. No. 27], the parties conferred. Based on the parties’ conference, Plaintiffs have filed their Second Amended Complaint with the opposing party’s written consent. See [Doc. No. 28]; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint “supersedes the original [and previously amended complaints] and renders [them] of no legal effect.” Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991). See also 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). Consequently, the Court DENIES as moot and without prejudice Defendant Joseph D. Gibson’s Partial Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 23]. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3) governs the deadlines for any required response to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of August 2025. W. DISHMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Vu v. Gibson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vu-v-gibson-okwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack