Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Moretta v. Prummel, 2:18-cv-690-FtM-38UAM. (2019)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20190214c48 Visitors: 2
Filed: Feb. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2019
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Sheriff Prummel's Motion to Dismiss Counts II, III and IV of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 15) and Defendant Matthew Piloto's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 17). In response, Plaintiff Alfredo Joseph Moretta requests leave to amend his complaint to address the issues raised in the Motions. (Doc. 20). Defendants do not object to Moretta's proposed amendment. (Doc. 21; Doc. 22). Accordingly, it is
More

ORDER1

Before the Court is Defendant Sheriff Prummel's Motion to Dismiss Counts II, III and IV of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 15) and Defendant Matthew Piloto's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 17). In response, Plaintiff Alfredo Joseph Moretta requests leave to amend his complaint to address the issues raised in the Motions. (Doc. 20). Defendants do not object to Moretta's proposed amendment. (Doc. 21; Doc. 22).

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

(1) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter Plaintiff Alfredo Joseph Moretta's Amended Complaint (Doc. 20-1) as a separate docket entry. (2) Defendants shall respond to the Amended Complaint on or before February 26, 2019. (3) Defendant Sheriff Prummel's Motion to Dismiss Counts II, III and IV of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 15) and Defendant Matthew Piloto's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 17) are DENIED as moot.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. 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 websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. 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