Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ROBINSON v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC., 2:15-cv-100-FtM-38MRM. (2015)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20160105760 Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 31, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 31, 2015
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on review of the file. On September 14, 2015, the Court issued an Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. #55) setting a final pretrial conference for March 18, 2016, and a trial term for April 2016. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, a visiting judge, will handle the pending motions and trial in this case. Consequently, the case w
More

ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court on review of the file. On September 14, 2015, the Court issued an Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. #55) setting a final pretrial conference for March 18, 2016, and a trial term for April 2016. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, a visiting judge, will handle the pending motions and trial in this case. Consequently, the case will be reset to the visiting judge's calendar for April 2016.

A motion hearing and status/final pretrial conference will be scheduled before Judge Magnuson under separate cover and at a later date. Questions regarding scheduling or Judge Magnuson's preferences should be directed to Courtroom Deputy Jackie Phipps at 651-848-1156.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

The Clerk of Court shall CANCEL the final pretrial conference and trial term before the undersigned. A separate notice and trial calendar will issue resetting the deadlines before the Honorable Paul A. Magnuson.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. 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 websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. 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