WATTERSON v. BURGESS, 3:13-cv-00159-FDW-DCK. (2016)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20160502b80
Visitors: 28
Filed: Apr. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 28, 2016
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , Chief District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Ben Blackburn, Selective Ins. Of S.C., Cherryville City Police Department, and Cherryville Utilities Department (Doc. No. 88). Both Plaintiffs' responded in opposition (Docs. Nos. 90, 91). As to the motion to dismiss as it pertains to claims asserted by Plaintiff Jeffrey R. Watterson, that portion of the motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT because that Plaintiff and t
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , Chief District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Ben Blackburn, Selective Ins. Of S.C., Cherryville City Police Department, and Cherryville Utilities Department (Doc. No. 88). Both Plaintiffs' responded in opposition (Docs. Nos. 90, 91). As to the motion to dismiss as it pertains to claims asserted by Plaintiff Jeffrey R. Watterson, that portion of the motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT because that Plaintiff and th..
More
ORDER
FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Ben Blackburn, Selective Ins. Of S.C., Cherryville City Police Department, and Cherryville Utilities Department (Doc. No. 88). Both Plaintiffs' responded in opposition (Docs. Nos. 90, 91). As to the motion to dismiss as it pertains to claims asserted by Plaintiff Jeffrey R. Watterson, that portion of the motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT because that Plaintiff and the moving parties have resolved all claims among them as evidenced by their stipulation of dismissal (Doc. No. 114). As to that portion of the motion to dismiss related to Plaintiff Randolph A. Watterson, the motion is DENIED without prejudice to reassert relevant arguments at summary judgment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 88) is DENIED AS MOOT in part and DENIED in part without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
