CIL Properties LLC v. U.S., 6:17-cv-774-Orl-40KRS. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20181109h85
Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 07, 2018
Summary: ORDER PAUL G. BYRON , District Judge . This cause comes before the Court upon the Joint Motion for Court to Dismiss (Doc. 63), filed by Plaintiff CIL Properties, LLC and Defendant the United States of America. 1 Upon review and consideration, the motion is due to be granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 63) is GRANTED . 2. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE . 3. The Court will retain jurisdiction solely for enfo
Summary: ORDER PAUL G. BYRON , District Judge . This cause comes before the Court upon the Joint Motion for Court to Dismiss (Doc. 63), filed by Plaintiff CIL Properties, LLC and Defendant the United States of America. 1 Upon review and consideration, the motion is due to be granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 63) is GRANTED . 2. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE . 3. The Court will retain jurisdiction solely for enfor..
More
ORDER
PAUL G. BYRON, District Judge.
This cause comes before the Court upon the Joint Motion for Court to Dismiss (Doc. 63), filed by Plaintiff CIL Properties, LLC and Defendant the United States of America.1 Upon review and consideration, the motion is due to be granted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 63) is GRANTED.
2. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3. The Court will retain jurisdiction solely for enforcing the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.
4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to deny all pending motions as moot, terminate all deadlines, and administratively close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. To the extent the motion could be construed as a stipulation of dismissal, the stipulation is self-executing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). See Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, 677 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir. 2012).
Source: Leagle
