Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

RUDLAND v. DMS HOSPITALITY LLC, 2:13-cv-779-FtM-38CM. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20140522889 Visitors: 11
Filed: May 21, 2014
Latest Update: May 21, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPEL, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on review of the file. On April 15, 2014, the Court granted the parties' second request for a thirty-day extension of time to meet and confer in a good faith effort to settle this case brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. ( Doc. #24 ). The Court set May 15, 2014, as the deadline for the parties to meet and confer and May 19, 2014, as the deadline to file the corresponding settlement report. ( Doc. #24
More

ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPEL, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on review of the file. On April 15, 2014, the Court granted the parties' second request for a thirty-day extension of time to meet and confer in a good faith effort to settle this case brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. (Doc. #24). The Court set May 15, 2014, as the deadline for the parties to meet and confer and May 19, 2014, as the deadline to file the corresponding settlement report. (Doc. #24). The deadlines have expired with nothing filed by the parties. The Court, therefore, will again direct the parties to file a settlement report that complies with the Scheduling Order dated January 8, 2014 (Doc. #14).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

The parties shall file a Report Regarding Settlement on or before May 28, 2014, in accordance with the Scheduling Order dated January 8, 2014 (Doc. #14).

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