PETRANO et al v. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY et al

Filing 81

ORDER: 80 Motion to Strike Conversion Motion filed by Defendant, CSX TRANSPORTATION INC is GRANTED. Clerk directed to strike Doc. 67 as a pending motion to the extent that the response is intended by Plaintiffs to serve as a motion for summary judgment. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 6/27/2012. (jws)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
DAVID F. PETRANO, and
MARY KATHERINE DAY-PETRANO,
husband and wife,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 1:12-cv-86-SPM-GRJ

OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc.’s Response In
Opposition to Plaintiffs’ “Conversion Motion For Summary Judgment,” Or In The
Alternative, Motion to Strike Conversion Motion. (Doc. 80.) Defendant CSX
Transportation, Inc. (“CSXT”) requests the Court in the alternative to strike Plaintiffs’
Conversion Motion For Summary Judgment.
On June 13, 2012 the Court entered an omnibus order dismissing Plaintiff’s
complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 74.) In that order the Court, inter alia, terminated
all of the pending motions to dismiss without prejudice because the Court had
dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Among the motions to dismiss referenced
in the Court’s Order was Doc. 32, Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc.’s Motion to
Dismiss Complaint. Defendant CSXT’s motion to dismiss was terminated as moot
because in the event CXST was not named as a party in the amended complaint there
would be no need for the Court to address the arguments raised in that motion. Indeed,
because the claims against CXST appear to be completely unrelated to the Plaintiffs’

Page 2 of 2

claims against Nationwide [as well as the other defendants] – and the Court directed
Plaintiffs not to include multiple unrelated claims in an amended complaint – it should
be unlikely that the Court will need to address the substantive arguments raised by
CSXT in its motion to dismiss.
Unfortunately, at the time the Court entered its Omnibus Order CSXT had not
had an opportunity to file a motion to strike Plaintiffs’ Response and “Conversion Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 67), which was filed the day before the Omnibus Order.
Therefore, in view of the fact that Plaintiffs’ “Conversion Motion” requests
summary judgment on a complaint that is no longer viable, the “Conversion Motion” is
moot and therefore is due to be stricken.
Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:
1.

Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Conversion Motion
(Doc. 80) is due to be GRANTED.

2.

The clerk is directed to strike Doc. 67 as a pending motion to the extent
that the response is intended by Plaintiffs to serve also as a motion for
summary judgment.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2012.

s/Gary R. Jones
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:12-cv-86-SPM-GRJ