From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CABRERA v. BOTO COMPANY, LIMITED

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Apr 11, 2006
Case No 8:05-cv-2209-T-26TGW (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2006)

Opinion

Case No 8:05-cv-2209-T-26TGW.

April 11, 2006


ORDER


Upon due consideration of the parties' submissions, and in light of Plaintiffs' counsel's representations as an officer of the Court, it is ordered and adjudged that Defendant Boto Serving, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 31) is denied without prejudice. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs' counsel's contention that the interests of justice are better served by allowing Plaintiffs to engage in discovery in an effort to refute the self-serving, perfunctory affidavit submitted by Defendant's president. Defendant may renew the motion after the completion of discovery.

See, e.g., Snook v. Trust Co. of Georgia Bank of Savannah, N.A., 859 F. 2d 865, 871 (11th Cir. 1988) (observing that under Eleventh Circuit precedent a party need not file an affidavit to comply with Rule 56(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but may rely on the representations of counsel as an officer of the court).

See Wallace v. Brownell Pontiac-GMC Co., 703 F. 2d 525, 527 (11th Cir. 1983) (stating that if court is satisfied with parties' explanations under Rule 56(f), it may deny a motion for summary judgment without prejudice).

DONE AND ORDERED.


Summaries of

CABRERA v. BOTO COMPANY, LIMITED

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Apr 11, 2006
Case No 8:05-cv-2209-T-26TGW (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2006)
Case details for

CABRERA v. BOTO COMPANY, LIMITED

Case Details

Full title:PAUL CABRERA and STEPHANIE CABRERA, Plaintiffs, v. BOTO COMPANY, LIMITED…

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

Date published: Apr 11, 2006

Citations

Case No 8:05-cv-2209-T-26TGW (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2006)