SEAGER
v.
HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss because it was moot after the defendant answered the complaint and failed to comply with local rules for removed motions.
Plaintiffs filed an insurance dispute case in state court, which the defendant removed to federal court. The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Local Rules Of Civil Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant. /
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is Defendant Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint. (Doc. 4). Plaintiffs Frank and Carol Seager have not responded, and the time to do so has expired.2 For the below reasons, the Court denies without prejudice the motion. This breach of contract insurance dispute stems from Hurricane Irma damage. (Doc. 3). Plaintiffs filed this case in state court, and Defendant removed it to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). Along with removal came Defendant’s motion to dismiss filed in state court. (Doc. 4). A week after
Local Rule 4.02 governs removal of cases from state court. Pertinent here, it says, “When a case is removed to this Court with pending motions on which briefs or legal memoranda have not been submitted, the moving party shall file and serve a supporting brief within 14 days after the removall[.]” M.D. Fla. R. 4.02(c).
Defendant has not followed this rule. The motion relies on Florida procedural rules and does not account for any federal jurisprudence on the matters raised. Defendant also has since answered the Complaint rendering the motion to dismiss moot. See, e.g., Capital Preferred Ins. v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 2:13-cv-868-FtM- 29UAM, 2013 WL 12156450, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 23, 2013) (denying as moot a motion to dismiss filed in state court before removal because, in part, “[a] defendant is not required to file an answer until court disposes of the motion to dismiss.” (citations omitted)).
The Court thus denies the motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Defendant Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 4) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 6, 2020.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record