Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Panzavecchia & Associates
-
Order | Filed: May 02, 2024 | Entered: May 03, 2024 Coleman et al v. Burger King Corporation
Other Fraud | Florida Southern
Order Staying Case ~Util - Terminate Deadlines and Hearings
ORDER: re 70 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly, we hereby ORDER and ADJUDGE that the case is STAYED and administratively CLOSED pending our resolution of this motion. Once we resolve the motion, we will reopen the case and set a hearing to discuss a new scheduling order. In the meantime, all deadlines including the trial period are stayed, but the parties may continue to engage in discovery until May 15, 2024. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 5/2/2024. See attached document for full details. (wce)
-
Order | Filed: December 18, 2023 | Entered: December 18, 2023 Rodriguez v. Sun Express, Inc. et al
P.I.: Other | Florida Southern
Order Dismissing/Closing Case or Party
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. Case Previously Closed. Signed by Judge Raag Singhal on 12/18/2023. See attached document for full details. (caw)
-
Order | Filed: November 16, 2023 | Entered: November 16, 2023 Coleman et al v. Burger King Corporation
Other Fraud | Florida Southern
Order on Motion for Sanctions
PAPERLESS ORDER denying 71 the Defendant's Motion for Sanctions. The Court needs time to adjudicate 70 the pending Motion to Dismiss. We recognize that the Defendant "asks the Court, as a Rule 11 sanction, to strike...false allegations, and/or to take judicial notice of the relevant portions of the discovery record, when ruling on BKC's motion to dismiss the SAC." Motion for Sanctions at 8. But "[c]ourts normally consider Rule 11 motions attacking pleadings at the end of litigation." E-Z Dock, Inc. v. Snap Dock, LLC, 2021 WL 4050951, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2021) (Chappell, J.) (denying motion for sanctions as "premature" because "E-Z Dock's claims are not so patently frivolous that the [c]ourt should consider sanctions at this stage"); Nutramax Labs., Inc. v. Zesty Paws LLC, 2023 WL 4493960, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 24, 2023) (Hoffman Price, Mag. J.) (denying motion for sanctions without prejudice because "most of [d]efendants' arguments for sanctions under Rule 11 seek to test the veracity, substance, or merits of the allegations of the third amended complaint"). In this case, we'll allow the Defendant to re-file its Motion for Sanctions after we adjudicate the pending Motion to Dismiss. One more thing: The Defendant has complied with the "Safe Harbor" provision of Rule 11(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and thus need not submit a second "Safe Harbor" letter before refiling its Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 11/16/2023. (lcr)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login