Opinion
Case No. 6:11-cv-443-Orl-31GJK.
June 21, 2011
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) filed by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the response (Doc. 20) filed by the Plaintiff, Andrew Conklin ("Conklin"), and the Notice of Supplemental authority filed by Wells Fargo, which the Court has reviewed.
This case is substantially similar to the case of Paschette v. Wells Fargo, Case No. 6:11-cv-442-Orl-31GJK. In particular, the issues and arguments raised in the instant motion mirror those raised in the motion to dismiss filed in Paschette, and the same result is warranted. See Doc. 25 in Paschette. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Count I is dismissed without prejudice, Count III is dismissed with prejudice as to Wells Fargo, only, and the Plaintiff's jury trial demand is hereby STRICKEN. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida.