GUNDAKER v. SOUTH LAKE HOSPITAL, INC., 5:14-cv-238-Oc-30PRL. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20140819747
Visitors: 19
Filed: Aug. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. #13) and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (Dkt. #18). Having reviewed the pleadings and the record, the Court concludes that the motion should be denied. Defendant's motion is based on its premise that Plaintiff was granted all FMLA benefits to which she was entitled. But, as Plaintiff points out, Plaintiff alleges in paragraph 10 of the Am
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. #13) and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (Dkt. #18). Having reviewed the pleadings and the record, the Court concludes that the motion should be denied. Defendant's motion is based on its premise that Plaintiff was granted all FMLA benefits to which she was entitled. But, as Plaintiff points out, Plaintiff alleges in paragraph 10 of the Ame..
More
ORDER
JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. #13) and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (Dkt. #18). Having reviewed the pleadings and the record, the Court concludes that the motion should be denied.
Defendant's motion is based on its premise that Plaintiff was granted all FMLA benefits to which she was entitled. But, as Plaintiff points out, Plaintiff alleges in paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint (Dkt. #10) that Defendant counted her FMLA absences in determining that Plaintiff violated its leave policy. Plaintiff further alleges that had the protected absences not been counted, Plaintiff would not have violated the policy. Therefore, the Amended Complaint states a cause of action.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. #13) is DENIED.
2. Defendant shall file its Answer to the Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.
3. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #5) filed on April 30, 2014, is terminated as moot.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
