throbber
Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 40 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`CASE NO. 6:20-cv-00272-ADA
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF PLAINTIFF VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STRIKE AMAZON’S COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`149226774.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 40 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 4
`
`On July 31, 2020, Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) filed a First Amended Com-
`
`plaint against Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Ser-
`
`vices, Inc. (collectively, “Amazon”) (Dkt. No. 31.) After amending its complaint, VoIP-Pal then
`
`filed a motion to dismiss or strike the counterclaims in Amazon’s answer to the original complaint.
`
`(Dkt. No. 32.)
`
`VoIP-Pal’s First Amended Complaint “supersedes the original complaint and renders it of
`
`no legal effect.” King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994). As a result, Amazon’s coun-
`
`terclaims to the original complaint and VoIP-Pal’s motion to strike those counterclaims are both
`
`moot. See Parker v. ABC Debt Relief Co., No. 3:10-CV-1332-P, 2011 WL 13156845, at *4 (N.D.
`
`Tex. Nov. 10, 2011); List Interactive, Ltd. v. Knights of Columbus, No. 17-cv-00210-RBJ, 2017
`
`WL 4621277, at *4 (D. Colo. Oct. 13, 2017).
`
`Moreover, Amazon has filed an answer to VoIP-Pal’s First Amended Complaint. While
`
`Amazon contends that its counterclaims were sufficiently plead, that is not an issue that merits the
`
`Court’s attention at this time. Thus, Amazon has not included counterclaims in its answer to the
`
`First Amended Complaint, thereby also rendering moot VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss or strike.
`
`Parker, 2011 WL 13156845, at *4 (denying motion to dismiss counterclaims as moot where “De-
`
`fendants’ First Amended Answer does not include the counterclaim Plaintiffs seeks [sic] to
`
`strike”).
`
`Accordingly, VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss or strike should be denied as moot.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 40 Filed 08/14/20 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 14, 2020
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ M. Craig Tyler
`M. Craig Tyler, Bar No. 00794762
`Perkins Coie LLP
`500 W 2nd St, Suite 1900
`Austin, TX 78701-4687
`Tel. No. 737.256.6113
`Fax No. 737.256.6300
`
`Daniel T. Shvodian, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`James F. Valentine, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`Wing H. Liang, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`Perkins Coie LLP
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
`Tel. No. 650.838.4300
`Fax No. 650.838.4350
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.Com, Services
`LLC; and Amazon Web Services, Inc.
`
`149226774.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 40 Filed 08/14/20 Page 4 of 4
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served on August 14, 2020, to all counsel of record who are deemed to
`
`have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(b).
`
`/s/ M. Craig Tyler
`M. Craig Tyler
`
`149226774.1
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket