Dedge v. Kendrick

Decision Date21 July 1988
Docket NumberNo. 87-3870,87-3870
Citation849 F.2d 1398
PartiesWalter G. DEDGE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steve KENDRICK, Defendant-Appellant. Non-Argument Calendar.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Julius F. Parker, Jr., Parker, Skelding, McVoy & Labasky, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant-appellant.

Joseph R. Moss, Cocoa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before HILL, VANCE and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The defendant, Steve Kendrick, appeals from the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(2), the district court is required to enter an order limiting the time to file and hear motions. In this case, the district court entered an order requiring that motions for summary judgment be filed by October 30, 1987. The defendant filed his motion for summary judgment on December 7, 1987. Therefore, the district court properly denied the motion as untimely, and we need not address the merits of the motion in this appeal. See United States Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir.1985).

AFFIRMED.

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Makin ex rel. Russell v. Hawaii, CV 98-00997 DAE.
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • November 26, 1999
    ...a motion filed after the scheduling order cut-off date where no request to modify the order has been made); see also Dedge v. Kendrick, 849 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir.1988) (motion filed after the scheduling order cut-off date is untimely and may be denied solely on that Johnson v. Mammoth Recreat......
  • C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • July 27, 2009
    ...however, has found to the contrary. Id. (citing Jauregui v. City of Glendale, 852 F.2d 1128, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 1988); Dedge v. Kendrick, 849 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir.1988)). Although a request to modify the Scheduling Order need not appear in a separate motion, the School Defendants do not speci......
  • US v. Princeton Gamma-Tech, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • March 29, 1993
    ...have refused to overlook filing deadlines. See, e.g., Edwards v. Cass County, Tex., 919 F.2d 273, 275 (5th Cir.1990); Dedge v. Kendrick, 849 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir.1988); Doe v. British Univs. North American Club, 788 F.Supp. 1286, 1297 (D.Conn.1992); State of N.Y. v. Allied Corp., 789 F.Supp.......
  • Nutton v. Sunset Station, Inc.
    • United States
    • Nevada Court of Appeals
    • June 11, 2015
    ...amend the scheduling order and the court's denial of that motion a denial of a motion to amend the scheduling order”); Dedge v. Kendrick, 849 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir.1988) (holding that a motion filed after scheduling order deadline is untimely and, where appropriate, may be denied solely on th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT