From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wing v. Boniface Chrysler Dodge, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Mar 26, 2013
Case No. 6:13-cv-429-ORL-19TBS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 6:13-cv-429-ORL-19TBS

03-26-2013

JAMES WING, Plaintiff, v. BONIFACE CHRYSLER DODGE, INC., Defendant.


ORDER

Defendant removed this action from the Circuit Court in and for Brevard County, Florida to this Court on March 18, 2013. (Doc. 1). Pending on the date of removal was Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time and/or Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 4). The motion asked the state court to stay Defendant's obligation to answer interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff on the grounds that the interrogatories concern possible violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and Plaintiff had not alleged a violation of the FLSA; and because Defendant believed the interrogatories would be moot once the state court heard Defendant's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 4). At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff made an ore tenus motion to amend which the state court granted. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff's amended complaint includes counts for failure to pay minimum wage and retaliation under the FLSA. (Doc. 2). Based upon this amendment, Defendant removed the action to this Court. (Doc. 1). Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time and/or Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 4), is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on March 26, 2013.

____________

THOMAS B. SMITH

United States Magistrate Judge
Copies to all Counsel


Summaries of

Wing v. Boniface Chrysler Dodge, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Mar 26, 2013
Case No. 6:13-cv-429-ORL-19TBS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2013)
Case details for

Wing v. Boniface Chrysler Dodge, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JAMES WING, Plaintiff, v. BONIFACE CHRYSLER DODGE, INC., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

Date published: Mar 26, 2013

Citations

Case No. 6:13-cv-429-ORL-19TBS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2013)

Citing Cases

Schwartzentruber v. Stephens

It was proper to make such reservation. Hillmer Co. v. Behr, 264 Ill. 568; Johnson v. McNellis, 228 Ill. 351;…

People v. Reclamation Dist. No. 136

It is sufficient to say [53 P. 1086] that they squarely meet the point and support the validity of such a…