From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dedge v. Kendrick

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jul 21, 1988
849 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir. 1988)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that a district court properly denied a motion as untimely where the motion was filed after the deadline set forth in the scheduling order and the movant did not request a modification of the scheduling order

Summary of this case from Gerth v. DeVries
See 18 Summaries

Opinion

No. 87-3870. Non-Argument Calendar.

July 21, 1988.

Julius F. Parker, Jr., Parker, Skelding, McVoy Labasky, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant-appellant.

Joseph R. Moss, Cocoa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before HILL, VANCE and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The defendant, Steve Kendrick, appeals from the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(2), the district court is required to enter an order limiting the time to file and hear motions. In this case, the district court entered an order requiring that motions for summary judgment be filed by October 30, 1987. The defendant filed his motion for summary judgment on December 7, 1987. Therefore, the district court properly denied the motion as untimely, and we need not address the merits of the motion in this appeal. See United States Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir. 1985).

AFFIRMED.

Summaries of

Dedge v. Kendrick

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jul 21, 1988
849 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir. 1988)

holding that a district court properly denied a motion as untimely where the motion was filed after the deadline set forth in the scheduling order and the movant did not request a modification of the scheduling order

Summary of this case from Gerth v. DeVries

holding that a district court properly denied a motion for summary judgment as untimely because the motion was filed after the deadline set in the scheduling order

Summary of this case from Wye Oak Tech., Inc. v. Republic of Iraq

holding that a district court properly denied a motion as untimely where the motion was filed after the deadline set forth in the scheduling order and the movant did not request a modification of the scheduling order

Summary of this case from Gamez v. United States

holding that a district court properly denied a motion as untimely where the motion was filed after the deadline set forth in the scheduling order and the movant did not request a modification of the scheduling order

Summary of this case from Pesqueira v. Ryan

holding that a district court properly denied a motion as untimely where the motion was filed after the deadline set forth in the scheduling order and the movant did not request a modification of the scheduling order

Summary of this case from Folta v. Van Winkle

holding that a district court properly denied a motion as untimely where the motion was filed after the deadline set forth in the scheduling order and the movant did not request a modification of the scheduling order

Summary of this case from Brisken v. Griego

holding that a district court properly denied a motion as untimely where the motion was filed after the deadline set forth in the scheduling order and the movant did not request a modification of the scheduling order

Summary of this case from Gause v. Unknown Indy

holding that a district court properly denied a motion as untimely where the motion was filed after the deadline set forth in the scheduling order and the movant did not request a modification of the scheduling order

Summary of this case from Rodrigues v. Ryan

holding that a district court properly denied a motion as untimely where the motion was filed after the deadline set forth in the scheduling order

Summary of this case from Pruitt v. Ryan

holding that a district court properly denied a motion as untimely where the motion was filed after the deadline set forth in the scheduling order

Summary of this case from Korff v. Phoenix

holding that a district court properly denied a motion as untimely where the motion was filed after the deadline set forth in the scheduling order and the movant did not request a modification of the scheduling order

Summary of this case from De Freitas v. Thomas

holding that a motion filed after scheduling order deadline is untimely and, where appropriate, may be denied solely on that ground

Summary of this case from Nutton v. Sunset Station, Inc.

holding that a motion filed after scheduling order deadline is untimely and, where appropriate, may be denied solely on that ground

Summary of this case from Nutton v. Sunset Station, Inc.

affirming the denial of a motion for summary judgment that was filed over one month after the pretrial deadline for filing and hearing motions

Summary of this case from Perez v. Miami-Dade Cty.

affirming denial of motion for summary judgment, filed more than one month late, as untimely

Summary of this case from Mangham v. Westin Hotel Mgmt., LP

affirming denial of motion for summary judgment, filed more than one month late, as untimely

Summary of this case from Fresh v. Ulmer

affirming district court's denial of motion for summary judgment, filed more than one month late, as untimely pursuant to Rule 16(b) (citing United States Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir. 1985))

Summary of this case from Seachase Condo. Owner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Nextel Wip Lease Corp.

In Dedge, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of a motion for summary judgment filed after the expiration of discovery.

Summary of this case from Matter of Ascot Mortg., Inc.
Case details for

Dedge v. Kendrick

Case Details

Full title:WALTER G. DEDGE, JR., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. STEVE KENDRICK…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Jul 21, 1988

Citations

849 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir. 1988)

Citing Cases

Seachase Condo. Owner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Nextel Wip Lease Corp.

"District courts 'enjoy broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases before them,' Chudasama v.…

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. of Ill. v. Vforce Inc.

For this reason alone, Ninth Circuit case law supports a district court's denial of a motion to amend as…

42 Citing Cases