ORDER GRANTING 76 EXTENSION OF TIME. Plaintiff shall have until July 20, 2020, to… — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 83)

Summary

An order granting an extension of time 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, dated July 10, 2020 and docketed as Dkt. 83. Considering the plaintiff's motion (Doc. 76) and responses by Truist (Doc. 80) and ServisFirst (Doc. 82), the order gives the plaintiff until July 20, 2020 to respond to the motions to dismiss filed by ServisFirst, Truist and The First. It states that no further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary unexpected circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control. The order declines to dictate the number or form of responses but states that a single combined response should fit within the local page limit. It is signed by United States District Judge T. Kent Wetherell, II.

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 GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

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

76) and the responses filed by Defendants Truist (Doc. 80) and ServisFirst (Doc.

82). Upon due consideration of these filings, it is

      ORDERED that:

      1. The motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff shall have until July 20, 2020, to

         respond to the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants ServisFirst, Truist,

         and The First. No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary

         unexpected circumstances beyond Plaintiff’s control.

      2. The Court will not micromanage the number or form of the response(s).

         The Court is perfectly capable of discerning the nuances between the

         arguments in Defendants’ motions and assessing which arguments, if any,
  have not been addressed, have been glossed over, or have been given short

  shrift in the event Plaintiff chooses to file a single response that

  collectively addresses the arguments common to all Defendants and

  individually addresses any Defendant-specific arguments rather than three

  separate responses that incorporate arguments by reference where

  appropriate. That said, if a single response is filed, the Court sees no

  reason that it cannot be done within the page limit in local rules given the

  overlap in many of Defendants’ arguments.

DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2020.

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




                                  2


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flnd.190491.83.0.pdf

Size

138,096 bytes

SHA-256

8b8874f2815de757bc95b8a6b67f2f5ed684917d6740c3a8b57f68338c37282f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flnd.190491.83.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.