Sunteck Transport Co., Inc. v. Nolan Transportation Group, Inc. et al, No. 9:2011cv80752 - Document 15 (S.D. Fla. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 4 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 9 Motion to Amend/Correct. Clerks Notice: Filer must separately re-file the amended pleading pursuant to Local Rule 15.1, unless otherwise ordered by the Judge. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 8/15/2011. (ir)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 11-80752-Civ-MARRA/JOHNSON SUNTECK TRANSPORT CO., INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff, vs. NOLAN TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC., a Georgia corporation, and KEVIN NOLAN, an individual, and JON GLASS, an individual, Defendants. ____________________________/ ORDER AND OPINION THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Nolan Transportation Group, Inc. and Defendant Kevin Nolan s Motion to Dismiss [DE 4] and Plaintiff s Motion for Leave to Amend [DE 9]. The Court has carefully considered the motions and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint against Defendants Nolan Transportation Group, Inc. ( Nolan Transportation ) and Kevin Nolan ( Mr. Nolan ) in Florida state circuit court, Palm Beach County, on or about May 19, 2011. Plaintiff then filed its Amended Verified Complaint on June 14, 2011 as of right pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(a), for the purpose of adding Defendant Jon Gloss ( Mr. Gloss ) to the action. Service on Mr. Gloss was effected on June 24, 2011. Defendants Nolan Transportation and Mr. Nolan removed this matter on June 29, 2011. Defendants Nolan Transportation and Mr. Nolan then filed their Motion to Dismiss on July 6, 2011. Plaintiff states that [r]ather than filing a legal memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff believes it can more efficiently address the alleged pleading defects by filing an amended complaint. DE 9 at ¶ 6. In its Rule 7.1(a)(3) Certification, Plaintiff states that counsel for the Moving Defendants has indicated that he is unable to obtain his clients approval or is unwilling to consent on their behalf. DE 9 at 4. Moving Defendants have not responded to the Motion for Leave to Amend and the time period for doing so has past. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff s Motion for Leave to Amend [DE 9] is GRANTED. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Pursuant to the Administrative Procedures, Southern District of Florida, Plaintiff shall separately electronically file its Second Amended Verified Complaint, which is deemed filed as of the date of this Order. As Plaintiff's Amended Verified Complaint will be replaced by a Second Amended Verified Complaint, it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Nolan Transportation Group, Inc. and Defendant Kevin Nolan s Motion to Dismiss [DE 4] is DENIED AS MOOT. This denial is without prejudice to movants reasserting the grounds raised in the motion if they deem it appropriate as to the Second Amended Verified Complaint. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 15th day of August, 2011. _________________________ KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge copies to: All counsel of record

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.