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

T.C. and A.C., parents and next friends ) of W.B., a minor child, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. CIV-24-1303-D v. ) ) CHATTANOOGA PUBLIC ) SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the Court are the following motions to dismiss: (1) Defendant Minor Student 2’s Partial Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [Doc. No. 13]; (2) Defendant “Minor Student 1’s” Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 23]; and (3) Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Independent School District No. 32 of Comanche County & Brief in Support [Doc. No. 25]. The motions challenge the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ original Complaint [Doc. No. 1]. In response to the motions, and after receiving an extension of time from the Court, Plaintiffs have 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.,

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

(10th Cir. 2015). Therefore, the above-referenced motions to dismiss are moot. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) Defendant Minor Student 2’s Partial Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [Doc. No. 13]; (2) Defendant “Minor Student 1’s” Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 23]; and (3) Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Independent School District No. 32 of Comanche County & Brief in Support [Doc. No. 25] are DENIED without prejudice to resubmission, if appropriate, in response to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 38]. IT IS SO ORDERED this 5" day of May, 2025.

Ady 0.O,Pit TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge