Moore v. San Carlos Park Fire Protection & Rescue, 2:17-cv-546-FtM-38MRM. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20181004f62
Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 03, 2018
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff Colleen Moore's Motion to Stay dated September 11, 2018. (Doc. 59). 2 Defendant San Carlos Park Fire Protection & Rescue has not responded, and the time to do so has expired. Moore's motion is thus ripe for review. Nearly two months ago, the Court granted San Carlos' motion to dismiss and dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. (Doc. 54). Moore has since moved this Court to reconsider that deci
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff Colleen Moore's Motion to Stay dated September 11, 2018. (Doc. 59). 2 Defendant San Carlos Park Fire Protection & Rescue has not responded, and the time to do so has expired. Moore's motion is thus ripe for review. Nearly two months ago, the Court granted San Carlos' motion to dismiss and dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. (Doc. 54). Moore has since moved this Court to reconsider that decis..
More
ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Colleen Moore's Motion to Stay dated September 11, 2018. (Doc. 59).2 Defendant San Carlos Park Fire Protection & Rescue has not responded, and the time to do so has expired. Moore's motion is thus ripe for review.
Nearly two months ago, the Court granted San Carlos' motion to dismiss and dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. (Doc. 54). Moore has since moved this Court to reconsider that decision. (Doc. 60). And she contemporaneously moved the Court to stay the time to appeal until it decides her motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 59). Moore's motion is superfluous because Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) tolls the time to file an appeal until after a district court decides a timely motion brought under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60. See e.g., Green v. Drug Enf't Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010) ("A timely filed Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment (among other motions) tolls the time limit in which to appeal."). Because Moore filed a timely motion for reconsideration, the procedural rules toll her time to file a notice of appeal without the Court having to do so. That said, the Court will deny the Motion as moot.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff Colleen Moore's Motion to Stay (Doc. 59) is DENIED as moot.
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.
2. Moore's Local Rule 3.01(g) Conference certification is inadequate. She filed her motion before San Carlos' counsel had an opportunity to fully consider the motion. (Doc. 59 at 2). Local Rule 3.01(g) requires a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion. The Court does not see any such effort here. It cannot overstate the importance of Local Rule 3.01(g) in helping avoid needless litigation. The Court thus expects all parties to follow Local Rule 3.01(g) going forward, as it will strike filings that do not comply with the rule's requirements.
Source: Leagle
