MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
| MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC |
| STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY |
| 1:2022cv22502 |
| August 8, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| K Michael Moore |
| Contract: Recovery Medicare |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal-Breach of Contract |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 4, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 16
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Defenses. #15 . Therein, Defendant requests that the Court permit it to amend its Answer and Affirmative Defenses #11 in accordance with Plaintiff's Motion to Strike #12 . See #15 at 1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) permits a party to amend its pleadings by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. The decision to grant or deny a motion to amend pleadings is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 598 (5th Cir. 1981). The policy of the federal rules is to permit liberal amendment to facilitate determination of claims on the merits and to prevent litigation from becoming a technical exercise in the fine points of pleading. Id. Thus, unless there is a substantial reason to deny leave to amend, the discretion of the district court is not broad enough to permit denial. Id. A substantial reason could include "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of the amendment." Grayson v. Kmart Corp., 79 F.3d 1086, 1110 (11th Cir. 1996). Here, Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant's Motion and the Court does not find a substantial reason to deny. #15 at 1. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion #15 is GRANTED. Defendant is instructed to file the amended responsive pleading separately on the docket on or before October 18, 2021. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike #12 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 10/4/2022. (fpi)
|
| Filing 15 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amended Defenses by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order on Motion for Leave to File Amended Defenses)(Pennekamp, John) |
| Attorney Caryn Lynn Bellus representing State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Defendant); Attorney Barbara Elizabeth Fox representing State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Defendant) terminated. Per DE 14 Order. (ebz) |
|
Filing 14
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Joint Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel #13 , which the Court construes as a Motion for Withdrawal. Therein, Defendant requests leave for Kubicki Draper to withdraw as counsel of record and notices Fowler White Burnett, P.A. as substitute counsel. Id. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Joint Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel #13 is GRANTED. Kubicki Draper is relieved of all further responsibilities related to Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in its defense against Plaintiff MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC. The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to REMOVE counsel associated with the law firm Kubicki Draper as counsel of record for Defendant. The Court further reminds the parties to style requests of the Court as motions seeking a specified relief. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 9/30/2022. (fpi)
|
| Filing 13 STIPULATION for Substitution of Counsel by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order Order on Joint Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel)(Pennekamp, John) |
| Filing 12 MOTION to Strike #11 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) by MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC. Responses due by 10/3/2022 (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jimenez, Robert) |
| Filing 11 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint re the Notice of Removal with Jury Demand by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY. (Fox, Barbara) |
| Filing 10 Certificate of Other Affiliates/Corporate Disclosure Statement by MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC identifying Corporate Parent MSP Recovery Holding Series 01, LLC, Corporate Parent Hazel Holdings I LLC, Corporate Parent Hazel Partners Holdings LLC for MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC (Jimenez, Robert) |
|
Filing 9
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. #6 . Therein, Defendant requests a fourteen (14) day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint [1-1] because it avers that Plaintiff has filed 25 or more similar cases against Defendant in the past month. Id. at 2. Plaintiff does not oppose the relief sought. Id. UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion #6 is GRANTED. Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint on or before August 29, 2022. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/12/2022. (fpi)
|
| Filing 8 Second Corporate Disclosure Statement by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY identifying Other Affiliate MSP Recovery Holding Series 01, LLC, Other Affiliate Hazel Holdings I LLC, Other Affiliate Hazel Partners Holdings LLC for STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Fox, Barbara) |
| Filing 7 Defendant's Corporate Disclosure Statement by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY identifying Other Affiliate MSP Recovery Holding Series 01, LLC, Other Affiliate Hazel Holdings I LLC, Other Affiliate Hazel Partners Holdings LLC for STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Fox, Barbara) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to #1 Notice of Removal (State Court Complaint), by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fox, Barbara) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER OF RECUSAL. Judge Jose E. Martinez recused. Case reassigned to Judge K. Michael Moore for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 8/9/2022. See attached document for full details. (vjk)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Change of Address, Email or Law Firm Name by Robert Ralph Jimenez (Jimenez, Robert) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY re #1 Notice of Removal (State Court Complaint), Corrected Notice of Removal (Fox, Barbara) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Jose E. Martinez. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. (pc) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (STATE COURT COMPLAINT - Complaint) Filing fee $ 402.00 receipt number AFLSDC-15853970, filed by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A -Trial File with Docket, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Fox, Barbara). (No Answer/Motion to Dismiss filed). Modified text on 8/9/2022 (pc). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
