Espresso Disposition Corporation 1 and Rowland Coffee Roasters, Inc. (collectively “Appellants”) seek review of the trial court’s order denying their motions to dismiss [Santana Sales & Marketing Group, Inc.’s (“Appellee’s”)] third amended com-plaint. Appellants claim that the trial court erred in denying their motions to dismiss because the plain and unambiguous language in the parties’
1. Compare and contrast a motion to dismiss with other pretrial motions. Identify their chief differences.
2. Why did the appellants in this case file a motion to dismiss?
3. What is the effect of granting a motion to dismiss?
4. Did the court grant or deny the appellants’ motion? Why did the court take this action?

  • CreatedJune 18, 2014
  • Files Included
Post your question