ADVANCED MEDICAL GROUP OF CENTRAL FLORIDA LLC AND VINAY KATUKURI, MD
v.
BTL INDUSTRIES, INC., MMP CAPITAL, INC., AMUR EQUIPMENT FINANCE, INC., BANLEACO, INC., LEAF CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC AND NORTH MILL CREDIT TRUST

M.D. Fla. | 2026-01-05
No. 101.
2025 WL 3484765 2026 FFL 142 District Court, M.D. Florida (2026) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The court denied as moot a motion for default against Leaf Capital Funding, LLC because the underlying complaint had been dismissed and transferred to the District Court for the District of Massachusetts, leaving no operative pleading to which the default could attach.


Holding

A motion for default cannot be entered on a dismissed pleading; therefore, the motion for default is necessarily moot when the complaint underlying it has been dismissed.


Key Quotes

“A default cannot be entered on a dismissed pleading, and therefore Plaintiff's motions are necessarily moot.”

Establishes the core principle that default motions cannot attach to dismissed complaints.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs Advanced Medical Group of Central Florida LLC and Vinay Katukuri, MD filed a motion for default against defendant Leaf Capital Funding, LLC…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court

Leaf Capital Funding, LLC and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof. Doc. No. 101. However, after Plaintiffs' filed the present motion, the Presiding District Judge transferred several claims to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and dismissed the remainder of Plaintiffs' complaint with leave to file an amended complaint by January 6, 2026. Doc. No. 102. Because Plaintiffs' motion for default related to the now-dismissed pleading, the motion

(Doc. No. 101) is DENIED as moot. See Allston v. Desantis, No. 6:24-cv-1085-CEM- DCI, 2025 WL 3484765, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2025) (“[A] default cannot be entered on a dismissed pleading, and therefore Plaintiff's motions are necessarily moot."); Vanstralen v. Tampa Bay Radiology Assocs., P.A., No. 8:20-cv-2445-T-36CPT, 2020 WL 7054687, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2020) (“As the original complaint is no longer the operative complaint, Plaintiff's motions for default due to Defendants' failure to respond to the initial complaint are now moot.").

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 5, 2026.

Leslie Hoffman Price UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …e to file an amended complaint by January 6, 2026. Doc. No. 102. Because Plaintiffs’ motion for default related to the now-dismissed pleading, the motion (Doc. No. 101) is DENIED as moot. See Allston v. Desantis, No. 6:24-cv-1085-CEM- DCI, 2025 WL 3484765, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2025) (“,A] default cannot be entered on a dismissed pleading, and therefore Plaintiff's motions are necessarily moot.”); Vanstralen v. Tampa Bay Radiology Assocs., P.A., No. 8:20-cv-2445-T-36CPT, 2020 WL 7054687, at *1 (M…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw