HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS OF ORLANDO, LLC d/b/a STAND-UP MRI OF ORLANDO, as assignee of Christina Rampersad, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 840b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2410RAMPInsurance — Bad faith — Count alleging violation of Florida Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act is abated pending resolution of other count in complaint

HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS OF ORLANDO, LLC d/b/a STAND-UP MRI OF ORLANDO, as assignee of Christina Rampersad, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2013-SC-10997-O. December 7, 2016. Tina Caraballo, Judge. Counsel: William S. England, Bradford Cederberg, P.A., Orlando, for Plaintiff. Timothy S. Kazee, Deland, for Defendant.ORDER

THIS MATTER having come before this Honorable Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer and Affirmative Defenses, and Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant’s Requests for Production from Non-Parties and this Honorable Court having heard arguments of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is Granted. Plaintiff shall file a revised Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of November 28, 2016. The Amended Complaint is deemed timely filed.

2. Count II — Violation of Florida’s Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act (Bad Faith) is abated until such time that a judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff as to Count I, or until such time that Count I is settled, which ever occurs first.

3. Defendant shall have twenty (20) days from the date of this Order to answer the Amended Complaint. However, Defendant is not required to answer or respond to Count II until twenty (20) days after the abatement is lifted pursuant to an Order of the Court.

4. Pursuant to the above Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer and Affirmative Defenses is Moot.

5. Due to time constraints, the Court was unable to address Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant’s Requests for Production from Non-Parties and therefore takes no action on same.