Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

DYER v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, 2:11-cv-577-FtM-38DNF. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20141007b01 Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on review of the file. On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for Final Default Judgment Against Defendant, Harbor Funding Group, Inc. ( Doc. #94 ). Plaintiff, however, failed to attach to the motion the referenced Affidavit As to Amounts Due and Owing. ( Doc. #94 ). Per the Court's instruction, Plaintiff refiled another Amended Motion ( Doc. #95 ) on July 10, 2014, which included the Affidavit.
More

ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on review of the file. On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for Final Default Judgment Against Defendant, Harbor Funding Group, Inc. (Doc. #94). Plaintiff, however, failed to attach to the motion the referenced Affidavit As to Amounts Due and Owing. (Doc. #94). Per the Court's instruction, Plaintiff refiled another Amended Motion (Doc. #95) on July 10, 2014, which included the Affidavit.

Since the Court entered an Order (Doc. #98) ruling on the refiled Amended Motion for Final Default Judgment (Doc. #95), the Court will now deny the original Amended Motion for Final Default Judgment (Doc. #94) as moot.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Plaintiff Michelle A. Dyer's Amended Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant, Harbor Funding Group, Inc. (Doc. #94) is DENIED as moot.

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