Posey v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama et al

Filing 39

ORDERED that (1) The 36 Recommendation is ADOPTED; (2) Defendant The Hartford's 17 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all of his claims against The Hartford pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i); (3) Defend ant Hartford is DISMISSED as a defendant in this cause of action based on Plaintiff's 31 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; (4) Defendant Hyundai's Preliminary 21 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegations and 20 Motion for Parti al Judgment on the Pleadings are DENIED as moot; (5) The claims against Defendant Hyundai omitted from the amended complaint, including Plaintiff's class claims under the FMLA, ADA, and state law and Plaintiff's individual claims under the FMLA and state law are DISMISSED without prejudice; and (6) This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 4/4/2016. (kh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL POSEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
HYUNDAI MOTOR
MANUFACTURING ALABAMA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-787-WKW

ORDER
On March 11, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to which no
timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 36.) Upon an independent review of the file
and upon consideration of the Recommendation, it is ORDERED that
(1)

The Recommendation is ADOPTED;

(2)

Defendant The Hartford’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 17) is DENIED as

moot because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all of his claims against The Hartford
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i);
(3)

Defendant Hartford is DISMISSED as a defendant in this cause of action

based on Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. # 31);

(4)

Defendant Hyundai’s Preliminary Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Class

Allegations (Doc. # 21) and Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. # 20) are
DENIED as moot;
(5)

The claims against Defendant Hyundai omitted from the amended

complaint, including Plaintiff’s class claims under the FMLA, ADA, and state law and
Plaintiff’s individual claims under the FMLA and state law are DISMISSED without
prejudice; and
(6)

This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings

DONE this 4th day of April, 2016.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE