Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

JEROME v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, 2:12-cv-610-FtM-38DNF. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20140425702 Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Joint Stipulation and Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice ( Doc. #106 ) filed on April 23, 2014. The Parties move for the dismissal with prejudice of this action as to all parties and all claims, with each party to bear his, her, or its own attorney's fees and costs. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds this motion is due to be granted and this matter is due to
More

ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Joint Stipulation and Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. #106) filed on April 23, 2014. The Parties move for the dismissal with prejudice of this action as to all parties and all claims, with each party to bear his, her, or its own attorney's fees and costs. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds this motion is due to be granted and this matter is due to be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

1. Joint Stipulation and Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. #106) is GRANTED. 2. This cause is DISMISSED with prejudice. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case, terminate any pending motions and enter judgment accordingly.

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

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