Goplus Corporation v. Crown Equipment Corporation

S.D. Georgia

Goplus Corporation v. Crown Equipment Corporation

DecidedMay 27, 2022

Docket4:20-cv-00034

StatusUnknown

This text of Goplus Corporation v. Crown Equipment Corporation (Goplus Corporation v. Crown Equipment Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goplus Corporation v. Crown Equipment Corporation, (S.D. Ga. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

GOPLUS CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CV420-034 CROWN EQUIPMENT ) CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER

The parties in this case jointly moved to administratively close this case to facilitate their ongoing attempts to reach a negotiated resolution. See generally doc. 70. For good cause shown, that Motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case without prejudice to the right of any party with standing to reopen it. See, e.g., In re Heritage Southwest Medical Group PA, 464 F. App’x 285, 287 (5th Cir. 2012) (“administrative closure does not have any effect on the rights of the parties and is simply a docket-management device.”). The parties’ Motion indicates that their attempts to resolve this case will likely be concluded by “the end of February 2023.” See doc. 70 at 1. The Court, therefore, DIRECTS the parties to confer and file a Status Report no later than March 17, 2023. If the parties have not resolved the case, that Status Report should include a proposed Amended Scheduling Order. The Status Report should also include no fewer than three proposed dates! and times on which counsel are available, between March 17, 2023 and March 31, 2023, for a Status Conference before the undersigned. Unless it has been dismissed, the Clerk is DIRECTED to REOPEN this case on April 3, 2023. SO ORDERED, this 27th day of May, 2022.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE E SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORG

1 To be clear, the Court expects counsel to provide three different days on which they are available for a conference. Proposing three different times on a single day, for example, is not sufficient.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

GOPLUS CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CV420-034 CROWN EQUIPMENT ) CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER

The parties in this case jointly moved to administratively close this case to facilitate their ongoing attempts to reach a negotiated resolution. See generally doc. 70. For good cause shown, that Motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case without prejudice to the right of any party with standing to reopen it. See, e.g., In re Heritage Southwest Medical Group PA, 464 F. App’x 285, 287 (5th Cir. 2012) (“administrative closure does not have any effect on the rights of the parties and is simply a docket-management device.”). The parties’ Motion indicates that their attempts to resolve this case will likely be concluded by “the end of February 2023.” See doc. 70 at 1. The Court, therefore, DIRECTS the parties to confer and file a Status Report no later than March 17, 2023. If the parties have not resolved the case, that Status Report should include a proposed Amended Scheduling Order. The Status Report should also include no fewer than three proposed dates! and times on which counsel are available, between March 17, 2023 and March 31, 2023, for a Status Conference before the undersigned. Unless it has been dismissed, the Clerk is DIRECTED to REOPEN this case on April 3, 2023. SO ORDERED, this 27th day of May, 2022.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE E SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORG

1 To be clear, the Court expects counsel to provide three different days on which they are available for a conference. Proposing three different times on a single day, for example, is not sufficient.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Goplus Corporation v. Crown Equipment Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goplus-corporation-v-crown-equipment-corporation-gasd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack