Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Cameron International Corporation ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT ) LLOYD’S LONDON and CERTAIN ) INSURANCE COMPANIES ) SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY ) ME1710087, individually and as ) subrogees of DEVON ENERGY ) PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P., ) et al, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-22-640-G ) CAMERON INTERNATIONAL ) CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Now before the Court is Defendant Cameron International Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 10), filed on August 12, 2022, and seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition (Doc. No. 1-4). Plaintiffs filed their original Petition (Doc. No. 1-2) in the District Court of Oklahoma County on June 20, 2022, and amended the original Petition as a matter of course on July 29, 2022. See Doc. No. 1-4. Defendant removed this action to federal court on July 29, 2022, see Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1), and filed the instant Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 10) on August 12, 2022. In response, Plaintiffs filed an “Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 38) on September 2, 2022. Defendant then filed a second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 62), arguing that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint should also be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). Under Rule 15(a)(1), a plaintiff may amend his pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) “21 days after serving it”; or (B) “21 days after service of a responsive pleading .... Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Jd. 15(a)(2). Because Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint constitutes a second amendment, it is not an amendment as a matter of course within the meaning of Rule 15(a)(1). In the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Briefing Schedule, however, the parties agreed that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint effectively moots Defendant’s first Motion to Dismiss. See Doc. No. 64 2. The Court construes this representation as Defendant’s written consent to Plaintiffs’ filing of a second amended complaint in satisfaction of Rule 15(a)(2). Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint therefore supersedes the First Amended Petition and renders it of no legal effect. See Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of September, 2022. (Barba B. Kadota United States District Judge