From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Simpson v. Am. Fid. Assurance, Co.

United States District Court, Western District of Oklahoma
Oct 3, 2024
No. CIV-24-512-R (W.D. Okla. Oct. 3, 2024)

Opinion

CIV-24-512-R

10-03-2024

MALIC SIMPSON, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE, CO., Defendants.


ORDER

DAVID L. RUSSELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses [Doc. No. 14]. During the pendency of the motion, Defendant filed an Amended Answer which “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 also Menapace v. Alaska Nat'l Ins. Co., No. 20-CV-00053-REB-STV, 2021 WL 2012324, at *5 (D. Colo. May 20, 2021) (“In light of the filing of the Amended Answer, the Court denied Plaintiff's First Motion to Strike as moot.”); Quality Time, Inc. v. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co., No. 12-1008-JTM, 2013 WL 257074, at *2 n.13 (D. Kan. Jan. 23, 2013) (“Notably, the answer to the amended complaint also superseded the original answer, which Plaintiffs were purportedly challenging.”).

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is DENIED without prejudice to resubmission, if appropriate.

IT IS ORDERED.


Summaries of

Simpson v. Am. Fid. Assurance, Co.

United States District Court, Western District of Oklahoma
Oct 3, 2024
No. CIV-24-512-R (W.D. Okla. Oct. 3, 2024)
Case details for

Simpson v. Am. Fid. Assurance, Co.

Case Details

Full title:MALIC SIMPSON, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE, CO., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Oklahoma

Date published: Oct 3, 2024

Citations

No. CIV-24-512-R (W.D. Okla. Oct. 3, 2024)