Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

DYER v. HARBOR FUNDING GROUP, INC., 2:11-cv-577-FtM-38DNF. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20140529d63 Visitors: 28
Filed: May 28, 2014
Latest Update: May 28, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Michelle A. Dyer and Defendant Michael D. Garber's Notice of Settlement as to Defendant, Michael D. Garber, Esq. ( Doc. #86 ) filed on May 20, 2014. Plaintiff and Defendant Garber advise the Court that the case has been settled as to Defendant Garber. ( Doc. #86 ). The Court, therefore, directs Plaintiff and Defendant Garber to submit a stipulated dismissal of the claims against Defendant Garber b
More

ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Michelle A. Dyer and Defendant Michael D. Garber's Notice of Settlement as to Defendant, Michael D. Garber, Esq. (Doc. #86) filed on May 20, 2014. Plaintiff and Defendant Garber advise the Court that the case has been settled as to Defendant Garber. (Doc. #86). The Court, therefore, directs Plaintiff and Defendant Garber to submit a stipulated dismissal of the claims against Defendant Garber by June 18, 2014 in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Plaintiff Michelle A. Dyer and Defendant Michael D. Garber shall file a final stipulation of dismissal on or before June 18, 2014. If no stipulation is received, and no request for extension of time is filed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's case as to Defendant Garber with prejudice and without further order.

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