Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

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

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20140618a13 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jun. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Christina Rudland and Seth Bishop and Defendants DMS Hospitality LLC, Matthew Hanson, and Darrell Hanson's Joint Report Regarding Settlement Negotiations ( Doc. #36 ) filed on June 13, 2014. The parties have been unable to resolve this matter on their own, and thus submit to mediation conducted by a Magistrate Judge. ( Doc. #36 at 4-5; Doc. #14 at 5 ). Since the parties seek to continue settlem
More

ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Christina Rudland and Seth Bishop and Defendants DMS Hospitality LLC, Matthew Hanson, and Darrell Hanson's Joint Report Regarding Settlement Negotiations (Doc. #36) filed on June 13, 2014. The parties have been unable to resolve this matter on their own, and thus submit to mediation conducted by a Magistrate Judge. (Doc. #36 at ¶¶ 4-5; Doc. #14 at ¶ 5). Since the parties seek to continue settlement discussions, the Court finds that mediation before a Magistrate Judge may be beneficial to resolving this matter.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

The parties' request that The Honorable Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier conduct mediation (Doc. #36) is GRANTED. The parties shall contact Judge Frazier's office to arrange for a mutually agreeable time to conduct the settlement conference.

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