Loading…
6 verbatim mandatory provisions from S-2024-086.
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Check the order's own effective and rescission dates before relying on it. Procedural information only; not legal advice.
Verbatim from the order's own text layer, harvested 2026-07-24; whitespace normalised only. No OCR was used. Only sentences containing mandatory language (shall, must, may not, no later than, within N) are reproduced — the full document is in custody and is the controlling text. • Service of DCM Order Because DCM Orders will be automatically generated upon the filing of the complaint, plaintiffs must serve the DCM Order on the defendant(s) along with the summons and complaint. • The service of the DCM Order must be made in the same manner and at the same time as the complaint itself is served. 4. • Modification of Deadlines Any modification to the deadlines contained in a DCM Order must be made in accordance with the requirements of Rule of Civil Procedure l .200(e). • Prior to the filing of any motion to extend a deadline or amend a case management order , the party or counsel must confer with the opposing party or opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issue(s) raised by the motion. • The motion must includ e a statement certifying that the moving party or moving party's counsel has conferred with the opposing party or opposing party's counsel - either in person, by telephone, or by video conferencing device - and stating whether the party or counsel agree on the resolution of the motion . • A certification to the effect that opposing party or opposing party's counsel was unavailable for a conference before filing a motion must describe , with particularity, all of the efforts undertaken to accomplish dialogue with the opposing party or opposing party's counsel prior to filing the motion. 5.
Service of DCM Order Because DCM Orders will be automatically generated upon the filing of the complaint, plaintiffs must serve the DCM Order on the defendant(s) along with the summons and complaint.
Reviewer note: Document sha256: f6b0329cbbc408a7e20658a9b4bff7381ecdb4f0d9a6c2daac62e788d20973dc (7507400 bytes). BenchPath harvested this circuit itself because no research corpus existed for it. Extraction is conservative: mandatory-language sentences only, so this rule is a faithful subset of the order, never a summary of it.
Judge Costello's AI section simply restates amended Rule 2.515(d)(2) — the post-AOSC26-12 statewide standard — a compliance model, not a local mandate: signers certify cited authorities exist and are accurately cited, with the rule's own sanctions.
The strongest in-the-wild confirmation of the 2026 statewide AI rule: Judge Bantner's page expressly states his prior AI requirements are REMOVED because of the May 28, 2026 amendment of Rule 2.515 — signing a filing now itself certifies the authorities exist and are accurately cited.