Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

ZACCONE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 2:15-cv-287-FtM-38CM. (2016)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20160211b32 Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 10, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 10, 2016
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Ford Motor Company's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #24) filed on February 9, 2016. The Court denies as moot Defendant's motion because of Defendant subsequently filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #25). Because Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss is still a live and pending motion, pro se Plaintiff Frank Anthony
More

ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Ford Motor Company's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #24) filed on February 9, 2016. The Court denies as moot Defendant's motion because of Defendant subsequently filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #25). Because Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss is still a live and pending motion, pro se Plaintiff Frank Anthony Zaccone must file a response to that motion within fourteen (14) days of service.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

(1) Defendant Ford Motor Company's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #24) is DENIED as moot. (2) Plaintiff Frank Anthony Zaccone must still file a response to Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #25) within fourteen (14) days of service.

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