Conklin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 9 Motion to dismiss; denying 9 Motion to stay; granting 9 Motion to strike. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 6/21/2011. (ED)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
O RLANDO D IVISION
ANDREW CONKLIN,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 6:11-cv-443-Orl-31GJK

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and JOHN
DOE LOAN OWNER, INC.,
Defendants.
________________________________________

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) filed by Defendant
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the response (Doc. 20) filed by the Plaintiff, Andrew Conklin
(“Conklin”), and the Notice of Supplemental authority filed by Wells Fargo, which the Court has
reviewed.
This case is substantially similar to the case of Paschette v. Wells Fargo, Case No. 6:11-cv442-Orl-31GJK. In particular, the issues and arguments raised in the instant motion mirror those
raised in the motion to dismiss filed in Paschette, and the same result is warranted. See Doc. 25 in
Paschette. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART. Count I is dismissed without prejudice, Count III is dismissed with prejudice as to

Wells Fargo, only, and the Plaintiff’s jury trial demand is hereby STRICKEN. In all other
respects, the motion is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on June 21, 2011.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party

-2-