Government Employees Insurance Company et al v. KJ Chiropractic Center LLC et al
Filing
308
ORDER adopting 299 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Sever Third Party Complaint 264 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike or in the Al ternative Sever KJ and Smith's Third Party Complaint 288 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants' Third Party Complaints (Docs. 253, 276) are stricken, without prejudice. Defendants Jean Dorestant, Sadat Smith, and KJ Chiropra ctic Center, LLC, are directed to file a notice of constitutional question as specified in Rule 5.1 and to serve said notice and the paper drawing into question the constitutionality of sections 400.990 - 400.995, Florida Statutes, on the Florida Att orney General by June 18, 2014. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403, the Court hereby certifies to the Attorney General of the State of Florida that the constitutionality of specific provisions of sections 400.990 - 400.995, Florida Statutes, has been questioned. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 5/28/2014. (BGS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY and
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 6:12-cv-1138-Orl-36DAB
KJ CHIROPRACTIC CENTER LLC,
WELLNESS PAIN & REHAB, INC.,
SADAT SMITH, ARTHUR VITO,
ESDRAS PIERRE LOUIS, JEAN
CASSAMAJOR, ROBERT COHEN,
ORLENE JOSEPH, EDNER DESIR,
ELAINE FELIX, VLADIMIR JEAN
PIERRE, ROBERT THELUSMA,
SHENIKA RICHARDSON, SHAYLA
GAINES, CHANEL AKINS, QUEENA
MCRAE, JEAN DORESTANT and
BELLE MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation filed by
Magistrate Judge David A. Baker on May 8, 2014 (Doc. 299). In the Report and Recommendation,
Magistrate Judge Baker recommends that the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike or in the Alternative
Sever Third Party Complaint (Doc. 264) be granted, in part, and the Third Party Complaint be
stricken. The Magistrate Judge also recommends that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike or in the
Alternative Sever KJ and Smith’s Third Party Complaint (Doc. 288) be granted, in part, and the
Third Party Complaint be stricken.
All parties were furnished copies of the Report and
Recommendation and were afforded the opportunity to file objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). No such objections were filed.
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, and upon this Court's independent
examination of the file, it is determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1)
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 299) is adopted,
confirmed, and approved in all respects and is made a part of this Order for all
purposes, including appellate review.
(2)
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Sever Third Party Complaint (Doc.
264) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
(3)
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Sever KJ and Smith’s Third Party
Complaint (Doc. 288) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
(4)
Defendants’ Third Party Complaints (Docs. 253, 276) are stricken, without
prejudice.
(5)
Defendants Jean Dorestant, Sadat Smith, and KJ Chiropractic Center, LLC, are
directed to file a notice of constitutional question as specified in Rule 5.1 and to
serve said notice and the paper drawing into question the constitutionality of
sections 400.990 – 400.995, Florida Statutes, on the Florida Attorney General by
June 18, 2014.
(6)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403, the Court hereby certifies to the Attorney General of
the State of Florida that the constitutionality of specific provisions of sections
400.990 – 400.995, Florida Statutes, has been questioned.
2
DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida on May 28, 2014.
Copies to:
The Honorable David A. Baker
Counsel of Record
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?