Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

RIVERA v. GOLFVIEW GOLF & RACQUET CLUB COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC., 2:14-cv-718-FtM-38DNF. (2015)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20150129e48 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jan. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 28, 2015
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendants Golfview Golf & Racquet Community Association, Inc. and Dennis Catoe's Motion to Dismiss Complaint With Prejudice ( Doc. #8 ) filed on January 5, 2015. Plaintiff Daisy Rivera thereafter filed an Amended Complaint on January 26, 2015. ( Doc. #16 ; Doc. #14). Since the Amended Complaint is now the operative pleading in this action, the Court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint as moot. See
More

ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Golfview Golf & Racquet Community Association, Inc. and Dennis Catoe's Motion to Dismiss Complaint With Prejudice (Doc. #8) filed on January 5, 2015. Plaintiff Daisy Rivera thereafter filed an Amended Complaint on January 26, 2015. (Doc. #16; Doc. #14). Since the Amended Complaint is now the operative pleading in this action, the Court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint as moot. See Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Grp., 193 F.3d 1342, 1345 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999) (noting, "[a]n amended complaint supersedes an original complaint" (citation omitted)).

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Defendants Golfview Golf & Racquet Community Association, Inc. and Dennis Catoe's Motion to Dismiss Complaint With Prejudice (Doc. #8) is DENIED as moot.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer