PRESCOTT ARCHITECTS INC v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY

Filing 12

ORDER re 7 MOTION to Continue to Abate or Continue Deadlines set forth in 4 Initial Scheduling Order and 8 Supplemental MOTION to Continue. The requested relief is GRANTED, to the extent the deadlines set forth in the cou rts December 1, 2008, scheduling order are STAYED, until further notice. The court also addresses the following. Prior to the removal of this case from state court plaintiffs filed a motion to stay arbitration proceedings and for an expedited hearin g; defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, stay the proceedings, and to dismiss and/or strike plaintiffs' complaint. These motions were not heard in state court and remain pending. Both motions are DENIED, without prejudice to their elec tronic refiling in this court. By January 26, 2009, the parties shall advise the court of the current status of this matter, including an explanation as to why it warrants expedited treatment and why a hearing or oral argument is necessary to resolve the issues presented. Signed by District Judge M CASEY RODGERS on 1/12/09. Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 1/26/2009) (lcu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT N O R T H E R N DISTRICT OF FLORIDA P E N SA CO L A DIVISION
PRESCOTT ARCHITECTS, INC., ET AL VS LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY REFERRAL AND ORDER Referred to Judge Rodgers on January 6, 2009 Type of Motion/Pleading: MOTION TO ABATE OR CONTINUE COMPLIANCE DEADLINES SET FORTH IN 12/1/08 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER and SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION Filed by: Defendant on 12/16/08 12/17/08 ( ) Stipulated/Consented/Joint Pleading RESPONSES: on Document 7-8 CASE NO. 3:08cv532 MCR/EMT

Doc.#

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT /s/ Lynn C. Uhl Deputy Clerk: Lynn Uhl

ORDER
Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 12th day of January, 2009, that: The requested relief is GRANTED, to the extent the deadlines set forth in the court's December 1, 2008, scheduling order are STAYED, until further notice. The court also addresses the following. Prior to the removal of this case from state court plaintiffs filed a motion to stay arbitration proceedings and for an expedited hearing; defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, stay the proceedings, and to dismiss and/or strike plaintiffs' complaint. These motions were not heard in state court and remain pending. Both motions are DENIED, without prejudice to their electronic refiling in this court. By January 26, 2009, the parties shall advise the court of the current status of this matter, including an explanation as to why it warrants expedited treatment and why a hearing or oral argument is necessary to resolve the issues presented.

s/

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE