Filed: Sep. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 26, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge. NOW, this 26 th day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant on September 27, 2013, together with a Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss; upon consideration of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, which response was filed October 11, 2013, together with Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; upon further consideration of the pleadings, exh
Summary: ORDER JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge. NOW, this 26 th day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant on September 27, 2013, together with a Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss; upon consideration of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, which response was filed October 11, 2013, together with Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; upon further consideration of the pleadings, exhi..
More
ORDER
JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge.
NOW, this 26th day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant on September 27, 2013, together with a Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss; upon consideration of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, which response was filed October 11, 2013, together with Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; upon further consideration of the pleadings, exhibits, and arguments of the parties; and for the reasons expressed in the accompanying Opinion,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is granted to the extent it seeks to dismiss plaintiff's claims in this action as res judicata.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed August 21, 2013 is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is denied to the extent it seeks to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed for statistical purposes.
