Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

STRATTON v. SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 2:14-cv-490-FtM-38CM. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20140922574 Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPEL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on review of the docket in this action. On September 17, 2014, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. (Doc. #5). Because the dismissal was without prejudice, if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, Plaintiff has until Thursday, October 2, 2014, to file an amended complaint. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint on or before this deadline, this ac
More

ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPEL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on review of the docket in this action. On September 17, 2014, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. (Doc. #5). Because the dismissal was without prejudice, if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, Plaintiff has until Thursday, October 2, 2014, to file an amended complaint. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint on or before this deadline, this action will be closed.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

In order to proceed with this action, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint on or before Thursday, October 2, 2014, or this case will be closed.

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