MILLER v. MEHDI, 6:12-cv-339-Orl-31GJK. (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20120413686
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 12, 2012
Summary: ORDER GREGORY A. PRESNELL, District Judge. This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) filed by Defendants Budget Rent a Car System, Inc. ("Budget") and PV Holding Corp. ("PV Holding"). On March 13, 2012, Plaintiffs were ordered to respond to said Motion by no later than March 27, 2012. The Court cautioned that "[f]ailure to respond may result in the motion being granted without further notice." (Doc. 11). Plaintiffs have failed to respond, and u
Summary: ORDER GREGORY A. PRESNELL, District Judge. This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) filed by Defendants Budget Rent a Car System, Inc. ("Budget") and PV Holding Corp. ("PV Holding"). On March 13, 2012, Plaintiffs were ordered to respond to said Motion by no later than March 27, 2012. The Court cautioned that "[f]ailure to respond may result in the motion being granted without further notice." (Doc. 11). Plaintiffs have failed to respond, and up..
More
ORDER
GREGORY A. PRESNELL, District Judge.
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) filed by Defendants Budget Rent a Car System, Inc. ("Budget") and PV Holding Corp. ("PV Holding"). On March 13, 2012, Plaintiffs were ordered to respond to said Motion by no later than March 27, 2012. The Court cautioned that "[f]ailure to respond may result in the motion being granted without further notice." (Doc. 11). Plaintiffs have failed to respond, and upon review, the Motion is meritorious.
This case arises out of an automobile accident between Plaintiffs and Defendant Siraj/Sjraaj Mehdi who was driving a rental car owned by Budget and PV Holding. Plaintiffs' claims against Budget and PV Holding are based solely on vicarious liability; however such claims are barred by 49 U.S.C. § 30106 absent "negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner." See Vargas v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 60 So.3d 1037, 1043 (Fla. 2011). No such negligence or criminal wrongdoing is alleged.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Budget and PV Holding are DISMISSED.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
