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

DEDRIC MARSHALL, ) KENDRIC MARSHALL, and ) DAVID JACKSON, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. CIV-19-642-D v. ) ) EVANS & ASSOCIATES ) UTILITY SERVICES, INC., and ) EVANS & ASSOCIATES ) ENTERPRISES, INC., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Evans & Associates Utility Services, Inc., and Evans & Associates Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”). Doc. No. 8. The Motion challenges the sufficiency of Dedric Marshall’s, Kendric Marshall’s, and David Jackson’s (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) original pleading [Doc. No. 1]. In response to the Motion, Plaintiffs have timely filed an amended pleading pursuant to 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.,

(10th Cir. 1991); see Predator Int’l, Inc. v. Gamo Outdoor USA, Inc.,

, 1180–81 (10th Cir. 2015); Mink v. Suthers,

(10th Cir. 2007). Thus, Defendants’ Motion is moot. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 8] is DENIED without prejudice to resubmission, if appropriate, in response to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 11]. IT IS SO ORDERED this 5" day of September 2019.

\ by Q TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

ny