Vu et al v. Gibson et al

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].
Case 5:25-cv-00426-JD Document 29 Filed 08/13/25 Page 1 of 2

2
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.
Case 5:25-cv-00426-JD Document 29 Filed 08/13/25 Page 2 of 2