Matos-Cruz v. JetBlue Airways Corporation et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying as moot 20 motion to dismiss and Motion for More Definite Statement. The portion of the Court's August 1 Order directing Plaintiff to show cause whether it had served JetBlue and, if so, why it had not yet moved for the entry of Clerk's default (Doc. 18, p. 3, 3) is DISCHARGED. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 8/3/2017. (VMF)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION FILOMENA MATOS-CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 6:17-cv-380-Orl-37TBS JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION; ABM AVIATION, INC., Defendants. _____________________________________ ORDER On June 26, 2016, Defendant ABM Aviation, Inc. moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s initial complaint. (Doc. 12 (“ABM’s MTD”).) The Court later granted ABM’s MTD as unopposed due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond. (Doc. 18 (“August 1 Order”).) The August 1 Order also noted that Defendant JetBlue Airways Corporation (“JetBlue”) had not yet appeared in this action and directed Plaintiff to indicate: (1) whether she had served Jet Blue; and (2) if so, why she had not yet moved for the entry of Clerk’s default (“Show Cause Directive”). (Id. at 3.) Recognizing the implications of the Show Cause Directive, JetBlue suddenly appeared and moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint based on the same grievances espoused in ABM’s MTD. (See Doc. 20 (“JetBlue’s MTD”).) But there is no operative complaint remaining in this action to dismiss; 1 thus, JetBlue’s MTD is due to be denied as 1 p. 3.) Plaintiff was given until August 9, 2017, to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 18, -1- moot. Notwithstanding JetBlue’s dilatory response, as it has now appeared and indicated its intent to defend this action, the Court will discharge its Show Cause Order. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Defendant JetBlue Airways Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 20) is DENIED AS MOOT. 2. The portion of the Court’s August 1 Order directing Plaintiff to show cause whether it had served JetBlue and, if so, why it had not yet moved for the entry of Clerk’s default (Doc. 18, p. 3, ¶ 3) is DISCHARGED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on August 3, 2017. Copies to: Counsel of Record -2-

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?