Opinion
Case No. 2:10-cv-376-FtM-36SPC.
July 9, 2010
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Parties' Stipulation Regarding Stay and Extension of Time for Defendant to Answer, Move, or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. #8) filed on July 6, 2010. The Parties have agreed to a 30-day extension of time for Defendant to respond to the Complaint and a stay of all proceedings pending a potential transfer to the Multidistrict Litigation Panel for other related bank overdraft fees cases. Due to the unpredictability of the transfer issue, the Court will grant a limited stay.
The Court notes that the Defendant incorrectly filed this pleading as a Stipulation rather than an Unopposed Motion to Stay. A stipulation is not a motion and future filings requesting unopposed relief must be filed as an unopposed motion. Failure to do so could result in denial of the requested relief.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) The Parties' Stipulation Regarding Stay and Extension of Time for Defendant to Answer, Move, or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. #8) is GRANTED to the extent that the case is stayed for a period of NINETY (90) DAYS from the date of this Order. Upon expiration of the stay, the parties may seek leave to continue the stay if the case is not otherwise transferred.
(2) Defendant's time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended until 30 days after the JPML declines to issue a conditional transfer order or a conditional transfer order is issued, becomes final, or the transfer becomes effective.DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida.