Exportaciones Textiles, S.A. DE C.V. v. Orange Clothing Co. et al

Filing 72

ORDER denying without prejudice to renew 71 Motion for Reconsideration re 71 MOTION for Reconsideration of Court's Retention of Jurisdiction filed by Exportaciones Textiles, S.A. DE C.V. Signed by Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan on 7/20/2010. (mkr)

Exportaciones Textiles, S.A. DE C.V. v. Orange Clothing Co. et al

Doc. 72

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 09-22967-CIV-HUCK/O'SULLIVAN EXPORTACIONES Textiles, S.A. DE C.V., Plaintiff, v. ORANGE CLOTHING CO., a Florida corporation, SCOTT H. DEUTSCH, individually, and ANDY WORTMANN, individually, Defendants. ________________________________/ ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff Exportaciones Textiles, S.A. De C.V.'s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Retention of Jurisdiction (DE # 71, 7/20/10). Having reviewed the applicable filings and law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff Exportaciones Textiles, S.A. De C.V.'s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Retention of Jurisdiction (DE # 71, 7/20/10) is DENIED without prejudice to renew. Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) provides, in part, that: Prior to filing any motion in a civil case, [with certain limited exceptions], counsel for the movant shall confer (orally or in writing), or make reasonable effort to confer (orally or in writing), with all parties or nonparties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in a good faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues to be raised in the motion. . . . At the end of the motion, and above the signature block, counsel for the moving party shall certify either: (A) that counsel for the movant has conferred with all parties or non-parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion and has been unable to do so; or (B) that counsel for the movant has made reasonable efforts to confer with all parties or nonparties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion, which efforts shall be identified with specificity in the statement, but has beenunable to do so. . . . Failure to comply with the requirements of

Dockets.Justia.com

this Local Rule may be cause for the Court to grant or deny the motion . . . . S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3) (2010) (emphasis added). The instant motion fails to comply with this rule. In the future, counsel shall confer with the opposing side prior to filing any motions. DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 20th day of July, 2010.

________________________________ JOHN J. O'SULLIVAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Copies provided to: U.S. District Judge Huck All counsel of record

2