Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

RUGE v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, 8:16-CV-216-T-30MAP. (2016)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20160503c98 Visitors: 4
Filed: May 02, 2016
Latest Update: May 02, 2016
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr. , District Judge . THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Dkt. 9) and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (Dkt. 11). Upon review of the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted. DISCUSSION Plaintiff Donna Ruge alleges she was terminated from her employment with Defendant State of Florida, Department of Financial Services, as a Court Reporter
More

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Dkt. 9) and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (Dkt. 11). Upon review of the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Donna Ruge alleges she was terminated from her employment with Defendant State of Florida, Department of Financial Services, as a Court Reporter II — Stenographer in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). Plaintiff assumes Defendant is her employer because her W-2 form for the year 2014 references "State of Florida, Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer" as her employer.

Defendant's motion makes clear that it did not employ Plaintiff; to the contrary, the record reflects that Plaintiff was, during the relevant period, employed by the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Administrative Office of the Courts. Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion merely relies on the same W-2 issued by Florida's Chief Financial Officer. She also argues that she is entitled to discovery on this issue. But as Defendant points out, all State of Florida employees receive a W-2 from the State of Florida's Chief Financial Officer regardless of which governmental entity employs them. As such, discovery on this issue would be futile because it is clear that Plaintiff has named the wrong Defendant.

It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. Defendant's Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Dkt. 9) is granted. 2. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in Defendant's favor and against Plaintiff. 3. After entry of final judgment, the Clerk is directed to close this case and terminate any pending motions as moot.

DONE and ORDERED.

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