Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wave Length Hair Salons of Florida, Inc. v. CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., 2:16-cv-206-FtM-38MRM. (2018)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20181105d96 Visitors: 2
Filed: Nov. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 01, 2018
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Strike or to Allow Defendants' Reply Brief to Stand as Filed (Doc. 208). Plaintiff does not oppose the relief requested. This matter is ripe for review. Defendants seek to strike the eleventh page of their Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment because it fails to comply with the Court's briefing order on page limits. (Docs. 176; 208; 210). After review, the Court finds go
More

ORDER1

Before the Court is Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Strike or to Allow Defendants' Reply Brief to Stand as Filed (Doc. 208). Plaintiff does not oppose the relief requested. This matter is ripe for review.

Defendants seek to strike the eleventh page of their Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment because it fails to comply with the Court's briefing order on page limits. (Docs. 176; 208; 210). After review, the Court finds good cause to grant Defendants' motion. It will strike the eleventh page of Defendants' reply brief.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

1. Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Strike or to Allow Defendants' Reply Brief to Stand as Filed (Doc. 208) is GRANTED. The eleventh page of the Defendants' Reply Brief (Doc. 210) is STRICKEN.

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