McBride v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Filing 6

ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Count One (Doc. 4, p. 3-4) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 9/21/2017. (VMF)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION GORDON MCBRIDE, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 6:17-cv-1639-Orl-37KRS LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. _____________________________________ ORDER Plaintiff initiated this uninsured motorist benefits action by filing a two-count Complaint for: (1) breach of contract (“Count I”); and (2) bad faith (“Count II”). (Doc. 2.) Defendant then filed a single motion, seeking: (1) dismissal of Count II (“MTD”); and (2) an extension of time to respond to Count I (“Extension Request”). (Doc. 4.) Upon consideration, the Extension Request is due to be denied as moot. Filing a partial motion to dismiss effectively suspends that party’s response time for the entire complaint. See, e.g., Jacques v. First Liberty Ins. Corp., No. 8:16-cv-1240-T23TBM, 2016 WL 3221082, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2016); see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 5B Federal Practice & Procedure Civil § 1346 (3d ed. 2017). Because the MTD is aimed only at Count II, Defendant’s time to respond to Count I is automatically extended. Thus, the Extension Request is unnecessary. -1- Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Count One (Doc. 4, p. 3–4) is DENIED AS MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on September 21, 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?