Killam v. Air and Liquid Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 101

ORDER: In the instance that Plaintiff opposes Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Doc. ## 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 53 , 56 , 57 , 65 ), Plaintiff is directed to file responses in opposition to the Motions by November 17, 2016. Failure to do so will result in the Court deeming the Motions to be unopposed Motions. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 11/14/2016. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MARC KILLAM,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-2915-T-33TBM

AIR AND LIQUID SYSTEMS, INC., ET
AL.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the following
pending motions: Air and Liquid Systems Corporation’s Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. # 37), filed October 17, 2016; Aurora Pump
Company’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 38), filed October 17,
2016; IMO Industries, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 39),
filed on October 17, 2016; Velan Valve Corp.’s Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. # 40), filed on October 17, 2016; Warren Pumps,
LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 41), filed on October 17,
2016; Crane Co.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 53), filed on
October 18, 2016; Goulds Pumps, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
# 56), filed on October 18, 2016; Electrolux Home Products,
Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 57), filed on October 18,
2016, and Strahman Valves, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #
65), filed on October 20, 2016.

Plaintiff, Marc Killam, failed to file a response in
opposition to the Motions within the time parameters of the
Local Rules.

Local Rule 3.01(b), M.D. Fla., explains, “Each

party opposing a motion or application shall file within
fourteen (14) days after service of the motion or application
a response that includes a memorandum of legal authority in
opposition to the request, all of which the respondent shall
include in a document not more than twenty (20) pages.”
Accordingly, on the present record, this Court considers
the

aforementioned

Motions

as

unopposed

by

Plaintiff.

However, in the instance that Plaintiff does, in fact, oppose
any

of

the

Motions,

Plaintiff

is

directed

to

file

his

responses in opposition to the Motions by November 17, 2016.
Absent a response by Plaintiff, however, this Court will be
inclined to grant the Motions as unopposed.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
In

the

instance

that

Plaintiff

opposes

Defendants’

aforementioned pending Motions to Dismiss (Doc. ## 37, 38, 39,
40, 41, 53, 56, 57, 65), Plaintiff is directed to file
responses in opposition to the Motions by November 17, 2016.
Failure to do so will result in the Court deeming the Motions
to be unopposed Motions.
-2-

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
14th day of November, 2016.

-3-