- Joined
- May 30, 2016
I think it's a failure of communication more than anything. From ECF #105 (Florida):I always insisted that it was possible, but only in the rarest extraordinary scenarios. Admittedly, though, I did not believe it would get transferred back, as the arguments presented by the moving party could hardly even be called as good as subpar.
"Counsel for Defendants is hereby ORDERED to file a status update in this Court once Plaintiff’s pending motions are ruled upon by the United States District Court for the District of Utah."
What the Northern District wanted to write, but couldn't, was the following:
"Counsel for Defendants is hereby ORDERED to file a status update in this Court once Plaintiff’s pending motions are ruled upon by the United States District Court for the District of Utah regardless of whether the District of Utah believes they have jurisdiction or not. Either they rule on this legal blumpkin in ECF #103 (Utah) or we send it back."
We know that Greer files a reply to everything and will try to appeal everything to keep this case on the dockets as long as he possibly can. Florida might assume that he'll try to appeal any judgments of theirs and the 14-day window that Utah "should" have provided him might be one angle for how he might do that.
Maybe they're just covering all the bases?