National Oilwell Varco LP v. Black Diamond Oilfield Rentals LLC

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, L.P., 	)
a Delaware limited partnership, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-24-1258-D
)
BLACK DIAMOND OILFIELD 	)
RENTALS, LLC, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff National Oilwell Varco, L.P.’s (NOV) Motion to Strike
Black Diamond Oilfield Rentals, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint
[Doc. No. 99]. Defendant Black Diamond Oilfield Rentals, LLC (Black Diamond) filed a
response [Doc. No. 123], and NOV filed a reply [Doc. No. 143]. Also before the Court is
NOV’s Motion for Order Allowing Discovery to Proceed Against Defendant Black
Diamond [Doc. No. 112], to which Black Diamond responded [Doc. No. 142], and NOV
replied [Doc. No. 144]. The matters are fully briefed and at issue.
I. 	Motion to Strike Motion to Dismiss
NOV moves to strike Black Diamond’s Motion to Dismiss Third Amended
Complaint [Doc. No. 91] on the grounds that it is untimely and not properly filed under
F ED. R. C IV. P. 12(b)(6), the motion cannot properly be considered under Rule 12(c) as
the pleadings have not yet closed, the motion references materials outside the Third
Amended Complaint, and the motion was filed for purposes of delaying discovery.
Case 5:24-cv-01258-D Document 158 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Taking these arguments out of turn, the Court first finds no reason to strike the
motion to dismiss on the basis that it would be premature to consider the motion under
Rule 12(c), or as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Nor would the Court strike a
motion to dismiss because it references materials outside the operative complaint. Rather,
these issues would merely be addressed by the Court when considering the merits of the
motion—the Court finds these reasons insufficient to strike the motion altogether.
Next, NOV contends that Black Diamond’s motion should be stricken as untimely
under Rule 12(b)(6). NOV asserts that because Black Diamond filed answers to NOV’s
first three complaints [Doc. Nos. 1, 32, 59], that Black Diamond has waived its ability to
file a Rule 12(b) motion in response to NOV’s Third Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 80].
Black Diamond counters that its motion to dismiss is timely under Rule 12(b)(6).
As noted by Black Diamond, “‘[i]f a plaintiff amends her complaint, the new pleading
supersedes the old one: The original pleading no longer performs any function in the
case.’” [Doc. No. 123, at 3] (citing Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22,
35 (2025)) (internal quotations omitted). Black Diamond also cites a prior decision of the
undersigned, in which the Court declined to strike a motion to dismiss an amended
complaint where the party had already filed an answer to a previous version of the
complaint. See Janzen v. Watonga Hosp. Trust Auth., No. CIV-11-70-D, 2012 WL
3921524 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 7, 2012). In Janzen, the undersigned provided:
‘Once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading
no longer performs any function in the case and any subsequent
motion made by an opposing party should be directed at the
amended pleading.’ Wright & Miller ¶ 1476 at 638 (3d ed.
2010). Similarly, when an amended complaint is properly filed,
Case 5:24-cv-01258-D Document 158 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 5

3
a defendant’s answer to the original complaint is superseded.
Although Plaintiff argues the factual allegations directed at the
Hospital in the Amended Complaint have not changed from
those asserted against it in the Complaint, she offers no
authority to support her view that the Hospital is bound by its
response to the original complaint.
Janzen, 2012 WL 3921524, at *1.
Upon consideration, the Court declines to strike Black Diamond’s motion as
untimely 	under 	Rule 12(b)(6). NOV’s 	Third 	Amended Complaint 	[Doc. 	No. 	80]
supersedes all prior complaints, and Black Diamond is not bound by its original responses
to the prior versions of NOV’s complaint. See Johnston v. Prairie View, Inc., No. 2:19-
cv-02041-HLT, 2020 WL 2025499, at *4 (D. Kan. Apr. 27, 2020) (“Because the original
complaint no longer was in effect, Defendant Lane’s original answer was also moot and
without legal effect. … For these reasons, Defendant Lane’s motion to dismiss is not
untimely, and the Court will consider the merits of the motion.”); see also Alexander v.
Two Oaks Investments, LLC, No. 23-cv-00406-SH, 2024 WL 3747166, at *5 (N.D. Okla.
Aug. 9, 2024) (citation omitted) (“Once a party is allowed to amend its pleadings, ‘the
opposing 	party’s 	right 	to 	interpose 	a 	Rule 	12(b) 	motion 	is 	extended 	or 	revived
accordingly.’”).
Finally, NOV contends that the motion should be stricken because it was filed for
purposes of delaying discovery. NOV includes this argument only in the introduction and
conclusion of its motion to strike. Regardless, the Court does not find anything in the record
that indicates that Black Diamond filed its motion to dismiss for the sole purpose of
delaying discovery or otherwise in bad faith. For these reasons, NOV’s Motion to Strike
Case 5:24-cv-01258-D Document 158 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Black Diamond Oilfield Rentals, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint
[Doc. No. 99] will be denied.
II. 	Motion for Order Allowing Discovery to Proceed Against Black Diamond
NOV also moves for an order allowing discovery to proceed against Black
Diamond, pursuant to LCvR26.3(c). In this action, Black Diamond has filed a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) [Doc. No. 91]. Motions to dismiss have also been filed
by Defendants Precision Engineering Solutions, LLC [Doc. No. 133] and Basin Energy
LLC and Basin Holdings LLC [Doc. No. 141]. The three motions to dismiss are pending.
Under the Court’s local rules, a pending Rule 12(b) motion prohibits any party from
proceeding with discovery in this action. See LCvR26.3(a) (“[I]f a motion has been made
pursuant to F ED. R. C IV. P. 12(b), no party may seek discovery from any source before that
motion has been decided and all moving parties have filed an answer or been dismissed
from the case.”). A party, however, may seek relief from this rule. See LCvR26.3(c) (“Any
party may move that discovery be permitted prior to the time period set forth in subsection
(a) of this rule.”).
NOV contends that Black Diamond filed its motion to dismiss in order to use
LCvR26.3(a) as a shield to avoid discovery. When Black Diamond was the only defendant
in this case, Black Diamond answered NOV’s first complaint, and the Court entered a
Scheduling Order [Doc. No. 25]. Since that time, NOV has amended its complaint three
times, adding seven other defendants. In the context of NOV seeking leave to file a third
amended complaint, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Strike Scheduling Order [Doc. No.
78], and the Scheduling Order was stricken by the Court [Doc. No. 79]. Now, Black
Case 5:24-cv-01258-D Document 158 Filed 01/14/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Diamond’s motion to dismiss is one of three pending before the Court, and the Court sees
no sufficient need to allow discovery to proceed as to Black Diamond only. And, as Black
Diamond notes, the scope of discovery may be narrowed or otherwise affected by the
Court’s disposition of the pending motions to dismiss. For these reasons, the Court declines
to allow discovery to proceed as to Black Diamond.
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that NOV’s Motion to Strike Black Diamond
Oilfield Rentals, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 99] is
DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that NOV’s Motion for Order Allowing
Discovery to Proceed Against Defendant Black Diamond [Doc. No. 112] is DENIED.1
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14 th day of January, 2026.
1 NOV has also filed a First Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 72], requesting an Order compelling
Black Diamond to “state whether it has withheld responsive documents on the basis of a particular
objection,” “link its document production to the corresponding production request,” and to
complete rolling production by a certain deadline. NOV’s Second Motion to Compel [Doc. No.
89] seeks an Order compelling Black Diamond to produce documents pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
34. As the Court has declined to permit discovery to continue as to Black Diamond, NOV’s
motions to compel [Doc. Nos. 72, 89] are DENIED as premature, without prejudice to
resubmission at a later date. For any resubmissions, the Court will require an additional meet-and-
confer, pursuant to LCvR37.1.
. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:24-cv-01258-D Document 158 Filed 01/14/26 Page 5 of 5