Rodkey et al v. 1-800 Flowers.com, Inc. et al
ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, INC. AND 1-800 FLOWERS TEAM SERVICES, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTE 19 AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 10/17/2016. (srb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
PAMELA RODKEY and CHERIE
CUMMINGS, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated employees
nationwide, and on behalf of the Ohio
and Oregon Classes,
Case No. 3:16-cv-311
Judge Thomas M. Rose
1-800 FLOWERS TEAM SERVICES, INC.,
HARRY AND DAVID, LLC, 1-800
FLOWERS SERVICE SUPPORT CENTER,
INC., and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, INC.
AND 1-800 FLOWERS TEAM SERVICES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT (DOC. 19) AS MOOT
This case is before the Court on Defendants 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. and 1-800 Flowers
Team Services, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) (Doc. 19)
filed on September 21, 2016. By the Motion to Dismiss, Defendants 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc.
and 1-800 Flowers Team Services, Inc. seek dismissal of the Collective and Class Action
Complaint (Doc. 1) for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
(Doc. 19 at
PAGEID# 101.) On October 12, 2016, in lieu of responding to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs
filed the First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint (Doc. 21).
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of
course within 21 days after service of a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)—as Plaintiffs have
done here. As the filing of the First Amended Collective Class Action Complaint moots the
Motion to Dismiss, it is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Monday, October 17, 2016.
s/Thomas M. Rose
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?