LOPEZ v. SCOTT, 2:15-cv-303-FtM-38MRM. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20150713661
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jul. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Mike Scott's Motion to Dismiss Complaint ( Doc. #8 ) filed on June 17, 2015. Instead of responding to the instant Motion, Plaintiff Mabel Lopez filed an Amended Complaint on July 6, 2015, rendering the instant Motion moot. ( Doc. #17 ). Consequently, the Court need not take any further action. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Defendant Mike Scott's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. #8) is
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Mike Scott's Motion to Dismiss Complaint ( Doc. #8 ) filed on June 17, 2015. Instead of responding to the instant Motion, Plaintiff Mabel Lopez filed an Amended Complaint on July 6, 2015, rendering the instant Motion moot. ( Doc. #17 ). Consequently, the Court need not take any further action. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Defendant Mike Scott's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. #8) is ..
More
ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Mike Scott's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. #8) filed on June 17, 2015. Instead of responding to the instant Motion, Plaintiff Mabel Lopez filed an Amended Complaint on July 6, 2015, rendering the instant Motion moot. (Doc. #17). Consequently, the Court need not take any further action.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
Defendant Mike Scott's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. #8) is DENIED as moot.
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
