SCHENCK v. OROSZ, 3:13-0294. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20140401803
Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 17, 2014
Summary: ORDER ALETA A. TRAUGER, District Judge. The plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Expansion of the Current Order Granting Motion For Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 77), to which the defendants have responded (Docket No. 79). For the most part, the defendants do not object to the expansion of the preliminary injunction, and their one objection might be easily cured. It is therefore ORDERED that, by March 24, 2014, the parties shall file a revised expanded Preliminary Injunction, the wording
Summary: ORDER ALETA A. TRAUGER, District Judge. The plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Expansion of the Current Order Granting Motion For Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 77), to which the defendants have responded (Docket No. 79). For the most part, the defendants do not object to the expansion of the preliminary injunction, and their one objection might be easily cured. It is therefore ORDERED that, by March 24, 2014, the parties shall file a revised expanded Preliminary Injunction, the wording ..
More
ORDER
ALETA A. TRAUGER, District Judge.
The plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Expansion of the Current Order Granting Motion For Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 77), to which the defendants have responded (Docket No. 79). For the most part, the defendants do not object to the expansion of the preliminary injunction, and their one objection might be easily cured. It is therefore ORDERED that, by March 24, 2014, the parties shall file a revised expanded Preliminary Injunction, the wording for which they agree upon.
It is so ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
