MOECKER v. STEAD, 8:12-cv-811-T-26AEP. (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20120515937
Visitors: 26
Filed: May 14, 2012
Latest Update: May 14, 2012
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA, District Judge. Upon due consideration of the procedural history of this case, it is ordered and adjudged that Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Dkt. 11) is denied. See Babcock v. Whatmore, 707 So.2d 702 , 704 n.6 (Fla. 1998) (quoting in part Shurden v. Thomas, 134 So.2d 876 , 878 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961)). In this case, there can be no question that Defendants sought affirmative relief in the recei
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA, District Judge. Upon due consideration of the procedural history of this case, it is ordered and adjudged that Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Dkt. 11) is denied. See Babcock v. Whatmore, 707 So.2d 702 , 704 n.6 (Fla. 1998) (quoting in part Shurden v. Thomas, 134 So.2d 876 , 878 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961)). In this case, there can be no question that Defendants sought affirmative relief in the receiv..
More
ORDER
RICHARD A. LAZZARA, District Judge.
Upon due consideration of the procedural history of this case, it is ordered and adjudged that Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Dkt. 11) is denied. See Babcock v. Whatmore, 707 So.2d 702, 704 n.6 (Fla. 1998) (quoting in part Shurden v. Thomas, 134 So.2d 876, 878 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961)). In this case, there can be no question that Defendants sought affirmative relief in the receivership case, a case inextricably intertwined with this case.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
