Mak v. Dunham et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
PAUL T. MAK,
Plaintiff,
v.
THEODORE R. DUNHAM JR.,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-24-248-SLP
O R D E R
Before the Court is Plaintiff Paul T. Mak’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant Theodore
R. Dunham Jr.’s (“Defendant’s”) counterclaims [Doc. No. 34]. Subsequent to the filing of
Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 39] and Defendant
filed an Answer and Amended Counterclaim [Doc. No. 43]. The Amended Counterclaim,
which is now the operative document, supersedes the allegations contained in the original
Counterclaim. See May v. Segovia, 929 F.3d 1223, 1229 (10th Cir. 2019). Thus, those
allegations are of “no legal effect.” Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th
Cir. 1991). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 34] is DENIED AS
MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of October, 2025.
Case 5:24-cv-00248-SLP Document 44 Filed 10/21/25 Page 1 of 1