Case Activity (250)

1. Response | Filed: September 16, 2026 | Entered: September 16, 2026 Xue et al v. Nicolaides et al

   Other Fraud | Florida Southern

   Reply in Support of Motion

   REPLY in Support of Motion re 64 MOTION for Sanctions (and for Contempt for Failing to Comply with Court's Mediation Order). filed by Mining Depot USA, Inc., SY Tech Group, Inc., Lipeng Xue. (Popowitz, Greg)

2. Order | Filed: September 14, 2026 | Entered: September 14, 2026 Xue et al v. Nicolaides et al

   Other Fraud | Florida Southern

   Order on Motion for Extension of Time

   PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time. 72 . Therein, Defendants request a two-week extension of their deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, because it "raises substantive legal and factual issues that require Defendants' counsel to review the record and prepare a thorough response, including any opposing statement of material facts." Id. at 1-2. Further, Defendants argue an extension until September 25, 2026, is needed because of "the practical realities of this litigation," as two related actions are pending and "various threshold issues remain unresolved." Id. at 2.
   
   Plaintiffs oppose the instant Motion. (ECF No. 74). Plaintiffs argue that Defendants asked for this extension only two days before their deadline to respond, all while failing to "identify an intervening event, unexpected circumstance, or other reason why they could not prepare their response or requested relief earlier." Id. at 2. Plaintiffs also state that Defendants, in reaching out to confer regarding the requested extension, cited their attorney's vacation as the reason an extension would be needed, even as Defendants have other attorneys of record. Id.
   
   The Court finds there is good cause for only a brief extension, especially as Defendants' delay in requesting an extension essentially turned the extension request into a self-executing one--their deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was September 11, 2026. The Court also finds, however, that Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by a brief extension and notes that Plaintiffs did not argue an extension would prejudice them. See generally id. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion 72 is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on or before September 17, 2026. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 9/14/2026. (hyn)

3. 248 additional result(s)