PAYLAN v. TEITELBAUM et al

Filing 61

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 60 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION signed by JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 1/23/17. Dr. Teitelbaum and UFBOT's 34 Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's 31 Corrected Amended Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and this cause is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (tss)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION CHRISTINA PAYLAN, M.D., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:15cv159-MW/GRJ SCOTT TEITELBAUM, et al., Defendants. ___________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 60. Upon consideration, no objections having been filed by the parties, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s opinion. 2. Dr. Teitelbaum and UFBOT’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Corrected Amended Complaint, ECF No. 34, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: (a) Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages as to UFBOT is stricken. 1 (b) Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages against Dr. Teitelbaum for state and federal law causes of action is DENIED. (c) Defendants’ motion to strike various paragraphs of Plaintiff’s complaint as redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous is DENIED. (d) Defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts I–III (1983 actions) as to UFBOT is DENIED. (e) (f) Plaintiff’s claim in VI (Defamation) is DISMISSED, and (g) 3. Plaintiff’s claim in Count IV (Retaliation) is DISMISSED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count V (Fraud) is DENIED. This cause is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. SO ORDERED on January 23, 2017. s/Mark E. Walker ____ United States District Judge 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?