DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 STEPHEN PLANTE, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2004-CV-0074 v. 5 5 BRET ALAN ROSANE, 5 5 Defendant. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Richard H. Hunter, Esq. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion For Sanctions For Violation of Pretrial Scheduling Order (Docket No. 219). Plaintiff filed an opposition to said motion. The time for filing a reply has expired. Having reviewed the parties’ written submissions and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds that Defendant has not suffered prejudice from Plaintiff’s failure to timely submit his portion of the proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order. In addition, the Court finds that the untimely service was inadvertent and not in bad faith. Moreover, the record reflects that Defendant filed, on April 15, 2009, what appears to be an amended Case: 1:04-cv-00074-LDD Document #: 236 Filed: 05/21/09 Page 1 of 2 Plante v. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_04-cv-00074/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_04-cv-00074-4.pdf
SHA-256 705690d68537d3ad520914b71b056fb507a47b629b9d02175d236cd1bb4ce714
Re-using this document
A work of the United States Government. Not subject to copyright in the United States under 17 U.S.C. § 105, and therefore in the public domain from the moment it was created.
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-705690d68537
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 STEPHEN PLANTE, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2004-CV-0074 v. 5 5 BRET ALAN ROSANE, 5 5 Defendant. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Richard H. Hunter, Esq. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion For Sanctions For Violation of Pretrial Scheduling Order (Docket No. 219). Plaintiff filed an opposition to said motion. The time for filing a reply has expired. Having reviewed the parties’ written submissions and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds that Defendant has not suffered prejudice from Plaintiff’s failure to timely submit his portion of the proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order. In addition, the Court finds that the untimely service was inadvertent and not in bad faith. Moreover, the record reflects that Defendant filed, on April 15, 2009, what appears to be an amended Case: 1:04-cv-00074-LDD Document #: 236 Filed: 05/21/09 Page 1 of 2 Plante v. Rosane 2004-CV-0074 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion For Sanctions document containing Defendant’s portion of the proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order (Docket No. 231). Consequently, the Court finds that sanctions are not warranted. WHEREFORE, it is now hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion For Sanctions For Violation of Pretrial Scheduling Order (Docket No. 219) is DENIED. ENTER: Dated: May 21, 2009 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:04-cv-00074-LDD Document #: 236 Filed: 05/21/09 Page 2 of 2