Shropshire v. Bank of America, 6:19-cv-878-Orl-37EJK. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20190820c58
Visitors: 14
Filed: Aug. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, JR. , District Judge . Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. (Doc. 16 (" Motion ").) For standing, which attacks this Court's subject matter jurisdiction, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff hasn't adequately pleaded injury-in-fact for his implied breach of contract claim. ( Id. at 13-14.) Defendant also argues that each count fails to state a claim and seeks dismissal with prejudice. ( Id. at 1-16.) Plaintif
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, JR. , District Judge . Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. (Doc. 16 (" Motion ").) For standing, which attacks this Court's subject matter jurisdiction, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff hasn't adequately pleaded injury-in-fact for his implied breach of contract claim. ( Id. at 13-14.) Defendant also argues that each count fails to state a claim and seeks dismissal with prejudice. ( Id. at 1-16.) Plaintiff..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON, JR., District Judge.
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. (Doc. 16 ("Motion").) For standing, which attacks this Court's subject matter jurisdiction, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff hasn't adequately pleaded injury-in-fact for his implied breach of contract claim. (Id. at 13-14.) Defendant also argues that each count fails to state a claim and seeks dismissal with prejudice. (Id. at 1-16.) Plaintiff has not yet responded to the Motion, although his deadline was August 16, 2019.1 See Local Rule 3.01(b) (requiring that a party opposing a motion file a response within fourteen days after receiving service of the motion). Thus, the Motion is due to be granted as unopposed, but the Court will permit Plaintiff the opportunity to re-plead to correct the deficiencies identified by Defendant.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED for failure to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g).
2. Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [DE 3] for Lack of Standing and Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Doc. 16) is GRANTED IN PART as unopposed.
3. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 3) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4. On or before Tuesday, September 3, 2019, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint consistent with the strictures of this Order. Failure to timely file will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice.
DONE AND ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. On August 18, 2019, Plaintiff moved for a two-week extension of time to respond, saying he "reached out to Defendants [sic] counsel as per local rules." This fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g), so the Court denies this request and considers the Motion unopposed.
Source: Leagle
