From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cargill v. Hartford Insurance Company of Midwest

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Apr 21, 2010
CASE NO: 8:10-cv-807-T-26TGW (M.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO: 8:10-cv-807-T-26TGW.

April 21, 2010


ORDER


Upon due consideration, it is ordered and adjudged that Plaintiff's Motion for Remand (Dkt. 9) is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 3.01(g). Counsel for the parties shall confer personally on or before April 23, 2010, in a good faith effort to resolve the issue raised by the motion without court intervention. In the event counsel cannot agree and Plaintiff refiles the motion, Defendant shall file its response within the time fixed by Local Rule 3.01(b). In the response, Defendant's counsel shall address the issue of why he waited more than thirty (30) days to remove the case after service on Defendant, which counsel acknowledges in the Notice of Removal was on February 2, 2010, when Defendant was on notice that the amount in controversy was in excess of $75,000.00 even prior to Plaintiff filing her lawsuit in state court, which counsel also acknowledges in the Notice of Removal.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida.


Summaries of

Cargill v. Hartford Insurance Company of Midwest

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Apr 21, 2010
CASE NO: 8:10-cv-807-T-26TGW (M.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2010)
Case details for

Cargill v. Hartford Insurance Company of Midwest

Case Details

Full title:ETHEL CARGILL, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

Date published: Apr 21, 2010

Citations

CASE NO: 8:10-cv-807-T-26TGW (M.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2010)