Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 19-cv-62450-BLOOM/Valle DEREK SAUNDERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMPLUS AIR CONDITIONING
CONTRACTOR, INC., et al. ,
Defendants.
____________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Amplus Air Conditioning Contractor, Inc. and Michael Perez (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [48] (“Motion”). Plaintiff filed his Response to the Motion, ECF No. [50] (“Response”). The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, the Response, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied as moot.
On February 14, 2020, Defendants filed the Motion. The Motion represents that the Complaint is deficient in certain respects, such as (1) by failing to properly plead an employer- employee relationship and improperly intermingling claims, (2) failing to state Plaintiff’s title or work performed, (3) failing to state facts related to interstate commerce, and (4) alleging the proposed claims in a conclusory fashion. On February 19, 2020, without seeking leave of Court, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“Amended Complaint”), ECF No. [49]. As represented by Plaintiff, the Amended Complaint was filed in response to the Motion and it now *2 renders the initial Complaint moot. [1] See ECF No. [50]. The Court agrees that given the new pleading, the Motion is now moot. Defendants must respond to the Amended Complaint within the time limits provided in Rule 15(a)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P. The Court separately cautions Plaintiff that the failure to comply with governing procedural rules will not be well-regarded by the Court, and if appropriate, may be deemed sufficient cause to dismiss the action.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Motion, ECF No. [48] is DENIED AS MOOT ; 2. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint, ECF No. [49], by March 4, 2020.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida on February 21, 2020. __________________________________ BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to:
Counsel of Record
[1] The Response acknowledges that the Amended Complaint was filed without first seeking leave to amend. Plaintiff, therefore, requests in the alternative that it be granted an unstated amount of additional time to file a motion for leave to the extent the Court disallows the Amended Complaint. 2