Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

MAGLIONE-CHENAULT v. DOUGLAS REALTY & DEVELOPMENT, INC., 2:13-cv-811-FtM-38CM. (2015)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20150501j45 Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 29, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 29, 2015
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on sua sponte review of the docket. The parties' mediation deadline was March 20, 2015. (See Doc. #43). Further, pursuant to local rule, within seven days following the conclusion of a mediation conference, the mediator shall file a mediation report on the case docket. See M.D. Fla. Local Rule 9.06(a). To date, such mediation report has not been filed in this case and at least seven days has passed sinc
More

ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court on sua sponte review of the docket. The parties' mediation deadline was March 20, 2015. (See Doc. #43). Further, pursuant to local rule, within seven days following the conclusion of a mediation conference, the mediator shall file a mediation report on the case docket. See M.D. Fla. Local Rule 9.06(a). To date, such mediation report has not been filed in this case and at least seven days has passed since the mediation deadline.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

No later than May 7, 2015, the parties are directed to (1) have Mediator James "Jim" Nulman file a mediation report in this case; (2) jointly file a notice regarding the outcome of their mediation efforts; or (3) show cause, individually or jointly, as to why mediation has not been completed by the Court's deadline. Failure to comply with this Order may result in court sanctions.

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