P. 1
gov.uscourts.flmd.263324.271.0

gov.uscourts.flmd.263324.271.0

|Views: 77|Likes:
Published by J Doe

More info:

Published by: J Doe on Jul 10, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/10/2012

pdf

text

original

Case 2:11-cv-00545-JES-SPC Document 271

Filed 07/10/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID 2624

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION NU IMAGE, INC., Plaintiff, vs. DOES 1-3,932, Defendant. ___________________________________ Case No. 2:11-cv-545-FtM-29SPC

ORDER This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification (Doc. #255) filed on June 25, 2012. Plaintiff argues that the Court’s May 24, 2012 Order (Doc. #246) “[p]resumably” granted the motions to quash only as to those individuals who filed motions challenging personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff argues that

the Order “was constructed without such specific wording” resulting in different interpretations by plaintiff’s counsel and a thirdparty served with a subpoena. Plaintiff seeks clarification as

whether the Order quashed the subpoena as to Doe #545 only, or otherwise. On May 23, 2012, the Court issued an Opinion and Order (Doc. #244) addressing the Motion to Quash or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss and/or Sever filed by John Doe #1, but applying the same reasoning to other pending motions. The Court found that the

Case 2:11-cv-00545-JES-SPC Document 271

Filed 07/10/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID 2625

“allegations in the Complaint are insufficient to allege personal jurisdiction over John Doe #1 or any defendant under the Florida long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause.” 5)(emphasis added). (Doc. #244, p.

On May 24, 2012, the addressed the Motion of The matter was presented to the

John Doe #545 in a separate Order.

Court as a result of John Doe #545's motion, without mention of any other John Does who may have been listed in the subpoena and without the parties providing a copy of the subpoena for review. To clarify, the Court has consistently stated that the Complaint fails to allege personal jurisdiction as to any defendant.

Therefore, any subpoenas issued in this case, based on the current operative pleading, are due to be quashed. Additionally, no

further subpoenas based upon this defective pleading may be issued. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification (Doc. #255) is GRANTED to the extent clarified herein. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this July, 2012. 10th day of

Copies: Counsel of record
-2-

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->