Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mercoglan v. Charlotte County Board of County Commissioners, 2:18-cv-209-FtM-38MRM. (2018)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20181016824 Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 15, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Charlotte County's Motion to Dismiss Counts IV, VI, and VII of Plaintiff Robert Mercoglan's Third Amended Complaint and Unopposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Claims for Punitive Damages in Counts III, IV, and V. (Doc. 45). Mercoglan does not oppose dismissing Counts IV, VI, and VII. (Doc. 46). Nor does he object to striking his claims for punitive damages in Counts III, IV, and V. Having carefully
More

OPINION AND ORDER1

Before the Court is Defendant Charlotte County's Motion to Dismiss Counts IV, VI, and VII of Plaintiff Robert Mercoglan's Third Amended Complaint and Unopposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Claims for Punitive Damages in Counts III, IV, and V. (Doc. 45). Mercoglan does not oppose dismissing Counts IV, VI, and VII. (Doc. 46). Nor does he object to striking his claims for punitive damages in Counts III, IV, and V. Having carefully considered the parties' briefs, applicable law, and the record, the Court will grant Charlotte County's motion.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

(1) Defendant Charlotte County's Motion to Dismiss Counts IV, VI, and VII of Plaintiff Robert Mercoglan's Third Amended Complaint and Unopposed Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Claims for Punitive Damages in Counts III, IV, and V (Doc. 45) is GRANTED. (2) Mercoglan is DIRECTED to file a Fourth Amended Complaint that complies with this Opinion and Order on or before October 19, 2018. Defendant must file an answer on or before October 24, 2018.

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