AARP, a District of Columbia Corporation, Plaintiff, v. KRAMER LEAD MARKETING GROUP, a Texas corporation, CHOICEPOINT, INC., a Georgia corporation, and ALLYN KRAMER, an individual, Defendants.

Case No. 3:03-cv-1033-J-20MCR.United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division.
January 12, 2006

ORDER
HARVEY SCHLESINGER, District Judge

At the November 1, 2005 Status Conference the Court allowed the Parties to file renewed, final motions for summary judgment and responses, for the purpose of allowing this Court to review a single, composite set of dispositive motions and responses. (See Doc. Nos. 431 433, filed December 22, 2005). At this time both Parties have filed their final dispositive motions and responses. (Doc. Nos. 435, 436, 437, 441, 444, 445.) Accordingly, this Court believes that the prior pending motions for summary judgment (Doc. No. 335, filed July 22, 2005; Doc. No. 390, filed October 12, 2005), partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 244, filed May 20, 2005), motions for leave to file reply (Doc. No. 294, filed June 24, 2005; Doc. No. 302, filed July 1, 2005; Doc. No. 359, filed August 9, 2005), motions for leave to file sur-reply (Doc. No. 313, filed July 11, 2005; Doc. No. 323, filed July 15, 2005; 353, filed August 8, 2005), motions to strike (Doc. No. 285, filed June 17, 2005; Doc. No. 301, filed July 1, 2005; Doc. No. 311, filed July 6, 2005) and the motion to submit newly discovered evidence (Doc. No. 327, filed

Page 2

July 20, 2005) should be terminated. As the Court will only consider the final set of dispositive motions and responses, the prior pending dispositive motions are DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to terminate these pending motions

If a Party believes a pending motion was terminated in error, it shall notify the Court in writing within five (5) days of this Order.

West Page 1146