Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BIJOU v. DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, 2:13-cv-884-FtM-38DNF. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20140619885 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jun. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, Magistrate Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff Fedod Bijou's Motion to Request Settlement Conference (Doc. #25) filed on June 10, 2014. The Plaintiff moves the Court to order a settlement conference because he is financially unable to pay his share of a mediator's costs and fees. Therefore, the Court directs the Defendant to file an expedited response to inform the Court if the Defendant would be amenable to a settlement conference with
More

ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff Fedod Bijou's Motion to Request Settlement Conference (Doc. #25) filed on June 10, 2014. The Plaintiff moves the Court to order a settlement conference because he is financially unable to pay his share of a mediator's costs and fees. Therefore, the Court directs the Defendant to file an expedited response to inform the Court if the Defendant would be amenable to a settlement conference with a United States Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

The Defendant Collier County, Florida, School Board shall file an expedited response on or before Monday, June 23, 2014, as to whether or not it would agree to a settlement conference before a United States Magistrate Judge in lieu of mediation with a private mediator.

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