ORDER. Defendants shall have until noon (central time) on July 10, 2020, to respond to… — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 79)

Summary

An order dated July 8, 2020 by United States District Judge T. Kent Wetherell, II in Sport & Wheat, CPA, PA v. ServisFirst Bank, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20cv5425-TKW-HTC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. It addresses Plaintiff's opposed motion for extension of time (Doc. 76) and shortens the 14-day response period because it would expire after the requested extension date. The court states that the motion appears supported by good cause but declines to dispense with a response in case something warrants denial. The order gives Defendants until noon (central time) on July 10, 2020 to respond and tolls Plaintiff's deadline to respond to ServisFirst's motion to dismiss pending disposition of the extension motion.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                             PENSACOLA DIVISION

SPORT & WHEAT, CPA, PA,

       Plaintiff,

v.                                                         Case No. 3:20cv5425-TKW-HTC

SERVISFIRST BANK, INC., et al.,

     Defendants.
______________________________/

                                              ORDER

       This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Doc.

76). Because the motion is opposed (see Doc. 77), the Court would typically hold it

for the 14-day response period in the local rules; however, because the response

period will not expire until after the date to which Plaintiff is requesting the

extension, the Court finds it necessary to shorten the response period.

       The Court considered dispensing with a response and granting the requested

extension of time because the motion appears to be supported by good cause 1 and it

does not appear that Defendants would be prejudiced by the extension, particularly



       1
           The Court understands that ServisFirst previously agreed to a 7-day extension of the
deadline for Plaintiff to respond to its motion to dismiss and that it should not take Plaintiff as long
to respond to the remaining motions to dismiss because they are substantially similar to the motion
that Plaintiff already responded to; however, Plaintiff’s proposal to respond to all of the remaining
motions in a single response rather than three separate responses would seem to promote judicial
economy.
since the Court does not intend to act on any of the motions until they are all ripe.

However, the Court elected not to dispense with the response because it is possible

the Court is overlooking something that would warrant denial of the motion.

      Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

      1. Defendants shall have until noon (central time) on July 10, 2020, to

         respond to Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time.

      2. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to ServisFirst’s motion to dismiss is

         tolled pending disposition of the motion for extension of time.

      DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2020.

                                      T. Kent Wetherell, II
                                       T. KENT WETHERELL, II
                                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                         2


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flnd.190491.79.0.pdf

Size

160,719 bytes

SHA-256

ce097ca5594d79a5f10773ebe2f20db95cba503a5bccbaf13d92016c0fd7bcc1

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flnd.190491.79.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.