COLEMAN v. STARBUCKS, 6:14-cv-527-Orl-22TBS. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20151002m86
Visitors: 2
Filed: Sep. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2015
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion titled "Starbucks and their Lawyers Tampered and Falsified Starbucks Partner Resource Reports then they Submitted as Evidence for the Trial and During the Pretrial Meeting they Committed Professional Misconduct." (Doc. 70). In her motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to investigate Defendant and its attorneys' allegedly unethical and illegal conduct, and order the parties to engage in a new settlement conf
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion titled "Starbucks and their Lawyers Tampered and Falsified Starbucks Partner Resource Reports then they Submitted as Evidence for the Trial and During the Pretrial Meeting they Committed Professional Misconduct." (Doc. 70). In her motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to investigate Defendant and its attorneys' allegedly unethical and illegal conduct, and order the parties to engage in a new settlement confe..
More
ORDER
THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion titled "Starbucks and their Lawyers Tampered and Falsified Starbucks Partner Resource Reports then they Submitted as Evidence for the Trial and During the Pretrial Meeting they Committed Professional Misconduct." (Doc. 70). In her motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to investigate Defendant and its attorneys' allegedly unethical and illegal conduct, and order the parties to engage in a new settlement conference and settle the case (Id.). The motion is DENIED without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with her obligations under M.D. FLA. R. 3.01(g) prior to filing the motion. Plaintiff may recall the Court explained Rule 3.01(g) to her in its Order dated April 11, 2014 (Doc. 5).
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
