WALTER G. DEDGE, JR., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

STEVE KENDRICK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Citator

Cited By

• Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 297 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2002)
  …50(a) motion" at the close of the evidence at trial. . Perez contends that we need not even consider the merits of the County's motion to withdraw because it was untimely under the district court's pretrial scheduling order. See Dedge v. Kendrick, 849 F. 2d 1398, 1398 (11th Cir.1988) (affirming the denial of a motion for summary judgment that was filed over one month after the pretrial deadline for filing and hearing motions). In particular, Perez asserts that the County (and Allsbury) filed the motion to…
• Dairl Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992)
  …Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff 768 F. 2d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir.1985) (court may deny as untimely 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 ground). [*609] We see no reason to deviate from that approach here, but the result would not change if Johnson’s motion to amend the…
• Lemon v. Dugger, 931 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1991)
  …th the pretrial order. Appellants contend that the pretrial order did not prevail over Rule 56(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a defendant may file a motion for summary judgment at any time. This Court in Dedge v. Kendrick, 849 F. 2d 1398 (11th Cir.1988), held to the contrary. The Court there said: The defendant ... 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 t…

Authorities Cited

• U.S. Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099 (9th Cir. 1985)