TOSLLUKU v. ROYAL POINCIANA GOLF CLUB, INC., 2:13-cv-887-FtM-38CM. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20140318897
Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 17, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Royal Poinciana Golf Club Inc.'s ("Defendant") Motion to Strike Request for Punitive Damages From Counts One, Two, Three and Four, and To Dismiss Count Three of Plaintiff's Complaint ( Doc. #12 ) filed on February 26, 2014. Plaintiff Arjana Toslluku ("Plaintiff") filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Strike and to Dismiss ( Doc. #14 ) along with an Amended Complaint ( Doc. #15 ) on March
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Royal Poinciana Golf Club Inc.'s ("Defendant") Motion to Strike Request for Punitive Damages From Counts One, Two, Three and Four, and To Dismiss Count Three of Plaintiff's Complaint ( Doc. #12 ) filed on February 26, 2014. Plaintiff Arjana Toslluku ("Plaintiff") filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Strike and to Dismiss ( Doc. #14 ) along with an Amended Complaint ( Doc. #15 ) on March ..
More
ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Royal Poinciana Golf Club Inc.'s ("Defendant") Motion to Strike Request for Punitive Damages From Counts One, Two, Three and Four, and To Dismiss Count Three of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. #12) filed on February 26, 2014. Plaintiff Arjana Toslluku ("Plaintiff") filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Strike and to Dismiss (Doc. #14) along with an Amended Complaint (Doc. #15) on March 1, 2014. Thus, Defendant's Motion is now ripe for the Court's review.
Under Middle District of Florida Local Rule 3.01(a)(h), a dispositive motion must be filed as a single document and clearly labeled as a dispositive motion. M.D. Fla. Local R. 3.01(a)(h). Here, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss simultaneously with its Motion to Strike (Doc. #12), and not as a single document as the Local Rules require. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, therefore, was improperly filed. Nevertheless, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is moot because Plaintiff filed a three-count Amended Complaint (Doc. #15) that excluded Count Three of the original Complaint (Doc. #1). Furthermore, because Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is now the operative complaint in this matter, Defendant's Motion to Strike is also moot.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count Three of Plaintiff's Complaint is DENIED as moot.
(2) Defendant's Motion to Strike Request for Punitive Damages is DENIED without prejudice. The Court grants Defendant leave to renew its Motion to Strike as it relates to the Amended Complaint.
DONE and ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. 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 Web sites, this court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. 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
