Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

SLANE v. CITY OF SANIBEL, 2:15-cv-181-FtM-38CM. (2015)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20150422992 Visitors: 6
Filed: Apr. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 21, 2015
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Motion for Preliminary Injunction ( Doc. #3 ) filed on March 20, 2015. The Court held a hearing on April 21, 2015. (Doc. #6; Doc. #20). In the motion, Plaintiff requests enjoining Defendants from terminating her or subjecting her to any other conduct likely to deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected speech. Since the filing of the Motion, Defendants fired Plaintiff. ( See Doc. #16 ). The C
More

ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #3) filed on March 20, 2015. The Court held a hearing on April 21, 2015. (Doc. #6; Doc. #20). In the motion, Plaintiff requests enjoining Defendants from terminating her or subjecting her to any other conduct likely to deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected speech. Since the filing of the Motion, Defendants fired Plaintiff. (See Doc. #16). The Court finds, and the parties concede, the motion for preliminary injunction is now moot. In addition, Defendants agree Plaintiff may file an amended complaint.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #3) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff has leave to amend her complaint no later than May 5, 2015. Otherwise, this matter will be dismissed.

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