Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Frank v. Rockhill Insurance Company, 2:18-cv-162-FtM-38NPM. (2019)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20191011g31 Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Rockhill Insurance Company's Unopposed Motion to Reschedule the Court's Final Pretrial Conference. (Doc. 124). This case is set for the November 2019 trial term and a final pretrial conference on October 25, 2019. Defendant's attorney has a mediation on October 25, and thus requests to continue the final pretrial conference. Plaintiff Howard Frank does not oppose the continuance. After reviewing the record an
More

ORDER1

Before the Court is Defendant Rockhill Insurance Company's Unopposed Motion to Reschedule the Court's Final Pretrial Conference. (Doc. 124). This case is set for the November 2019 trial term and a final pretrial conference on October 25, 2019. Defendant's attorney has a mediation on October 25, and thus requests to continue the final pretrial conference. Plaintiff Howard Frank does not oppose the continuance.

After reviewing the record and Defendant's motion, the Court finds good cause to continue the final pretrial conference. But the Court will also move the trial term because of its calendar and authority to manage its civil case docket. The Court thus sets this case for the February 2020 trial term with a January 24, 2020 final pretrial conference.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

(1) Defendant Rockhill Insurance Company's Unopposed Motion to Reschedule the Court's Final Pretrial Conference (Doc. 124) is GRANTED. (2) The Clerk is DIRECTED to set this case for the February 2020 trial term with a final pretrial conference on January 24, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. before the undersigned.

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