AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges

GOODY'S FAMILY CLOTHING, INC., Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL SPRINKLER CO. a/k/a Tyco Fire Products, LP; LIFE SAFETY, INC., Defendants. LIFE SAFETY, INC., Cross-claimant,

ORDER

G. TIDWELL, Senior District Judge

The above-styled matter is presently before the court on:

1) Central Sprinkler's motion to dismiss [docket no. 64];

2) Central Sprinkler's motion to strike [docket no. 65];

3) Central Sprinkler's motion to quash application for default [docket no. 74];

4) Central Sprinkler's motion to file answer [docket no. 75].

Plaintiff filed the instant action against defendants on March 11, 2003, asserting claims for product liability, breach of warranty, and negligence. On April 8, 2004, the court granted plaintiff's motion for default judgment against defendant Life Safety. On August 11, 2004, the court granted Central Sprinkler's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff. The cross-claim was the only claim remaining. On October 28, 2005, Central Sprinkler filed a motion to dismiss the cross-claim, and contemporaneously filed a motion to strike Life Safety's cross-claim and answer to the complaint as untimely. On November 10, Central Sprinkler filed a motion to quash application for entry of default on the cross-claim, and a motion for leave to file an answer to the cross-claim.

On November 28, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its cross-claim against Central Sprinkler. In an order dated November 30, 2005, the court issued an order granting plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss. Accordingly, as the cross-claim is no longer pending, Central Sprinkler's motion to dismiss the cross-claim [docket no. 64] and motion to strike the cross-claim and answer [docket no. 65], Life Safety's motion for default judgment on the cross-claim [docket no. 73], and Central Sprinkler's motion to quash application for default on the cross-claim [docket no. 74] and motion to file an answer to the cross-claim [docket no. 75] are DENIED AS MOOT.

Summary

1) Central Sprinkler's motion to dismiss [docket no. 64] is DENIED AS MOOT;

2) Central Sprinkler's motion to strike [docket no. 65] is DENIED AS MOOT;

3) Central Sprinkler's motion to quash application for default [docket no. 74] is DENIED AS MOOT;

4) Central Sprinkler's motion to file answer [docket no. 75] is DENIED AS MOOT.

SO ORDERED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

GOODY'S FAMILY CLOTHING, INC. v. CENTRAL SPRINKLER CO. (N.D.Ga. 2005)
(Dec 1, 2005)