1:05-ap-10081•White v. Taylor
Full text
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA In re FANNIE MARY TAYLOR, Debtor. ____________________________ WILLIAM DOUGLAS WHITE, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. JAMES LEROY TAYLOR, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 05-00681 (Chapter 7) Adversary Proceeding No. 05-10081 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER The plaintiff has filed a Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (Docket Entry (“DE”) No. 13). The defendant has opposed the motion. The motion fails to state any grounds for granting the motion, and thus violates LBR 9013-1(b)(1) (“All motions shall state with particularity the grounds therefor . . . .”). Accordingly, the motion does not warrant setting a hearing. It is thus The Decision and Order below is hereby signed. Dated: January 8, 2007. _____________________________ S. Martin Teel, Jr. United States Bankruptcy Judge Case 05-10081 Doc 15 Filed 01/08/07 Entered 01/08/07 15:04:20 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 2
2 C:\Documents and Settings\teel\My Documents\White vs Jas Taylor (In re Fannie Mary Taylor) Decsn & Order Denying Mtn to Amend Scheduling Order.wpd ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Scheduling Order is DENIED without prejudice to the filing of a motion that alleges sufficient grounds to justify amending the scheduling order. [Signed and dated above.] Copies to: All counsel of record; Office of United States Trustee. Case 05-10081 Doc 15 Filed 01/08/07 Entered 01/08/07 15:04:20 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 2
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.