Love v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CORDELL LOVE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-913-SLP
)
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, )
LLC and EXPERIAN INFORMATION )
SOLUTIONS, INC., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
The following matters are before the Court: (1) Plaintiff’s Response [Doc. No. 22]
to the Court’s December 1, 2025 Order [Doc. No. 20] directing Plaintiff to show cause as
to Plaintiff’s failure to timely file his Amended Complaint, and; (2) Defendant Equifax
Information Services LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and Brief in Support
[Doc. No. 11].
Counsel for Plaintiff states that he “failed to file the Amended Complaint . . . as
separate docket entries following the Court’s Order . . . and due to an oversight, neglected
to refile them separately as required.” [Doc. No. 22] at 2. Plaintiff’s repeated failure to
comply with the requirements of Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has
resulted in a gross waste of judicial resources for an otherwise simplistic and unopposed
amendment. See [Doc. Nos. 16 and 20]. The Court does not find the imposition of
sanctions, including dismissal of the matter, is appropriate at this time. However, Plaintiff
and his counsel are admonished and warned that any failure to comply with the Court’s
Case 5:25-cv-00913-SLP Document 23 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 3

2
orders in the future may result in a monetary fine, dismissal of this action, or any other
sanctions the Court deems proper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d
1199, 1204, n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (Rule 41(b) “has long been interpreted to permit district
courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the
rules of civil procedure or court’s orders.”).
Plaintiff submitted what he purports to be the Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 21]
before filing the Response. Notably absent from the Court’s Order [Doc. No. 20] is any
indication that Plaintiff was granted further leave to file the Amended Complaint. While
the Court is appreciative of counsel’s attempt to correct his mistake, Plaintiff still has not
procedurally complied with the requirements of Rule 15(a)(2). However, Plaintiff was
previously granted leave to file the Amended Complaint and counsel for Defendants did
not oppose the previous request for leave. See [Doc. Nos. 17 and 18]. In light of these
circumstances and in an effort to avoid a further waste of judicial resources, the Court,
acting sua sponte, deems Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 21] as filed and it is
now the operative pleading.
Due to the filing of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 21], “[t]he [A]mended
[C]omplaint, as the operative complaint, supersedes the original complaint’s allegations[.]”
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, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 11] is DENIED AS MOOT.
Case 5:25-cv-00913-SLP Document 23 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of December, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-00913-SLP Document 23 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 3