You're viewing Docket Item 44 from the case Zero Manufacturing, Inc. v. Edak, Inc. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 6:13-cv-00852-GAP-DAB Document 44 Filed 09/11/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID 332



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION



Plaintiff,

ZERO MANUFACTURING, INC.,



v.

EDAK, INC., GREGG T. BENOIT,






Defendants.

Case No: 6:13-cv-852-Orl-31DAB





ORDER

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On June 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed its

First Amended Verified Complaint (Doc. 17) and a motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 18).

On July 9, 2013, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 20) the First Amended Verified

Complaint.

More recently, the Plaintiff was granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (Doc.

38), which it did on August 23, 2013. The Second Amended Verified Complaint deletes one

claim about which the Defendants had complained and appears to alter some of the other

allegations from the First Amended Verified Complaint. As such, the filing of Second Amended

Verified Complaint moots the motion to dismiss. Moreover, the motion for preliminary injunction

relied in large part on the First Amended Verified Complaint to establish entitlement to injunctive

relief. Accordingly, the Court finds that the motion for preliminary injunction has also been

rendered moot by the filing of the Second Amended Verified Complaint.





Case 6:13-cv-00852-GAP-DAB Document 44 Filed 09/11/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID 333






Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 18)

and the motion to dismiss (Doc. 20) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT.



DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on September 11, 2013.


Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties






- 2 -