Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Spears v. SHK Consulting and Development, Inc., 2:18-cv-286-FtM-38MRM. (2018)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20180726a50 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 25, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 25, 2018
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . Before the Court are Defendant David Nirenberg's and Defendant SHK Consulting and Development, Inc.'s motions to dismiss the Complaint. (Doc. 15; Doc. 18). Plaintiff Daniel C. Spears has since filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 31). Because the Amended Complaint is the operative pleading, the Court denies Defendants' motions to dismiss as moot. See Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Grp., 193 F.3d 1342 , 1345 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999) (notin
More

ORDER1

Before the Court are Defendant David Nirenberg's and Defendant SHK Consulting and Development, Inc.'s motions to dismiss the Complaint. (Doc. 15; Doc. 18). Plaintiff Daniel C. Spears has since filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 31). Because the Amended Complaint is the operative pleading, the Court denies Defendants' motions to dismiss as moot. See Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Grp., 193 F.3d 1342, 1345 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999) (noting, "[a]n amended complaint supersedes an original complaint" (citation omitted)).

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

(1) Defendant David Nirenberg's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is DENIED as moot. (2) Defendant SHK Consulting and Development, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) is DENIED as moot. (3) Defendants have on or before August 8, 2018, to respond to the Amended Complaint.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. 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 websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. 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