Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BENNETT v. FOREST LABORATORIES, 2:06-cv-72-FtM-38DNF. (2015)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20150323791 Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2015
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Reset Final Pretrial Conference ( Doc. #109 ) filed on March 13, 2015. Currently the Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for Friday, April 3, 2015. Due to this date being Good Friday, Plaintiff's counsel seeks to alter the Final Pretrial Conference so that he can attend traditional family plans. Upon consideration, the Court will grant the request. Accordingly, it is
More

ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Reset Final Pretrial Conference (Doc. #109) filed on March 13, 2015. Currently the Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for Friday, April 3, 2015. Due to this date being Good Friday, Plaintiff's counsel seeks to alter the Final Pretrial Conference so that he can attend traditional family plans. Upon consideration, the Court will grant the request.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Reset Final Pretrial Conference (Doc. #109) is GRANTED. The Final Pretrial Conference is now set for Thursday, April 16, 2015, at 9:30 am. The Clerk is directed to appropriately change the docket schedule.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer