Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

FARRELL v. STATE, 2:15-cv-41-FtM-38CM. (2015)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20150325a34 Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 24, 2015
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Scott and Bondi's Unopposed Motion to Stay Requirement to File Case Management Report ( Doc. #12 ) filed on February 10, 2015. Defendants Rick Scott and Pam Bondi request staying the requirement to file a case management report until the Court determines the merits of the pending motions to dismiss. ( See Doc. #19 ). Plaintiff Patrick Lorne Farrell, pro se, does not oppose the motion. Due
More

ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Scott and Bondi's Unopposed Motion to Stay Requirement to File Case Management Report (Doc. #12) filed on February 10, 2015. Defendants Rick Scott and Pam Bondi request staying the requirement to file a case management report until the Court determines the merits of the pending motions to dismiss. (See Doc. #19). Plaintiff Patrick Lorne Farrell, pro se, does not oppose the motion. Due to the unique nature of the case, the Court finds the motion is due to be granted. To be clear, the requirement to file a case management report is hereby stayed until the Court issues an order resolving the pending motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Defendants Scott and Bondi's Unopposed Motion to Stay Requirement to File Case Management Report (Doc. #12) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Patrick Lorne Farrell.

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