Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

RUMREICH v. CIRCLE K STORES INC., 2:14-cv-278-FtM-38CM. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20140623823 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 20, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Circle K Stores Inc.'s Response to Court's Order to Show Cause ( Doc. #8 ) filed on June 11, 2014, and Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority in Support of Response to Court's Order to Show Cause ( Doc. #11 ) filed on June 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the Court directed Defendant to show why this case should not be remanded for failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on the presence
More

ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Circle K Stores Inc.'s Response to Court's Order to Show Cause (Doc. #8) filed on June 11, 2014, and Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority in Support of Response to Court's Order to Show Cause (Doc. #11) filed on June 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the Court directed Defendant to show why this case should not be remanded for failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction based on the presence of diversity. (Doc. #7). Based upon Defendant's timely responses to that Order (Doc. #7), the Court finds that this case is properly before it.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

The Court will take no further action on its Order dated May 27, 2014. (Doc. #7). This case is properly before the Court.

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