Rosello v. Tower Imaging, Inc. et al

Filing 28

ORDER ATTACHED denying 26 Motion to Dismiss and Motion for More Definite Statement; and denying 27 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 10/12/2017. (CCB)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION ROLAND A. ROSELLO, d/b/a ROLAND A. ROSELLO, P.L., Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 8:17-cv-1884-T-26TBM TOWER IMAGING, INC., f/k/a TOWER IMAGING, INC., d/b/a COMMUNITY DIAGNOSTIC CENTER OF BRANDON, and MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION COLLECTIONS DIVISION, INC., Defendants. / ORDER UPON DUE AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION of the well-pleaded allegations of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which this Court must accept as true at this early juncture of the proceedings and must construe in the light most favorable to Plaintiff,1 it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint or Alternative Motions for More Definite Statement (Dkts. 26 & 27) are denied. In the Court’s view, those allegations state claims 1 See Bishop v. Ross Earle & Bonan, P.A., 817 F. 3d 1268, 1270 (11th Cir. 2016). for relief plausible on their face against both Defendants for violating the federal Fair Debt Collections Practice Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.2 Defendants shall file their answer and defenses to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of this order. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on October 12, 2017. s/Richard A. Lazzara RICHARD A. LAZZARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record 2 See id. -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?