UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

In re:

Chance & Anthem, LLC,

 Debtor.

 /

Case No.: 18-16248-MAM

Chapter 7

Robert C. Furr,

 Plaintiff.

Adv. Proc. No. 19-1298-MAM

v.

Jeffrey M. Siskind, et al.

 Defendants. 

 /

Jeffrey M. Siskind,

 Counter-Plaintiff. 

v.

Genovese, Joblove & Battista, P.A., et al.

 Counter-Defendants. 

 /

Mindy A. Mora, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on June 3, 2020.

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 357 Filed 06/04/20 Page 1 of 4
2

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING 

MEDIATION [ECF NO. 312]

THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Motion for Order Requiring 

Mediation [ECF No. 312] (the “Motion”) filed by Jeffrey Siskind (“Siskind”). In the 

Motion, Siskind states that the above-captioned plaintiff (“Trustee”) has submitted 

extensive lists of witnesses and exhibits. Siskind argues that because litigation is 

likely to be protracted and expensive, both parties would benefit from an order 

mandating mediation.

This case has been contentious from inception and subject to extensive motion 

practice beyond the usual motion practice attendant to a normal adversary 

proceeding in this Court. Although it is the Court’s practice to grant a request for 

mediation if all parties have assented to the process, the Court is concerned that 

mediation at this juncture may not be appropriate for a number of reasons. 

First, the Court has previously addressed and granted requests for extension 

of time to prepare for trial, one of which was agreed to by both Trustee and defendants

(ECF No. 59) early on in this proceeding, another of which was made by the Trustee 

and unopposed by defendants (ECF No. 197) in December 2019, and the last of which 

was made by Siskind and the remaining defendants, and opposed by the Trustee 

(ECF No. 325) last month, in May 2020. Effectively, the Trustee has now signaled 

that he is ready to proceed to trial.

At the hearing conducted on May 12, 2020 on the last request for an extension 

of time to conduct discovery and to continue the pretrial conference, the Court 

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 357 Filed 06/04/20 Page 2 of 4
3

granted one final extension of time for all parties, including Siskind, to prepare for 

trial and stated unequivocally on the record that the trial date will be set at the 

pretrial conference scheduled for July 14, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (ECF No. 325).

As a result of the Court’s prior ruling that no further extensions of the pretrial 

conference date would be granted, the Court perceives that the instant Motion is 

designed to be nothing more than a means to obtain further delay in the trial of this 

proceeding.

Second, at the end of the instant Motion, Siskind included a certificate of 

service that merely reflected that service of the Motion was effected on the Trustee 

and other parties to this adversary proceeding. Pursuant to Local Rule 9073-1(D), the 

certificate of service is required to include a certification that movant’s attorney has 

contacted counsel for all adverse parties to attempt to resolve the matter which is the 

subject of the motion without hearing. Notwithstanding that requirement, Siskind 

failed to include this type of certification either in the certificate of service or in the 

body of the Motion. As a result, the Court can only conclude that Siskind ignored his 

obligation to consult with opposing counsel set forth in Local Rule 9073-1(D).

Therefore, the Court finds and determines that mediation is not appropriate 

until and unless all parties present a joint agreed motion to mediate. 

Therefore, the Court, being otherwise fully advised in the premises, ORDERS

AND ADJUDGES that the Motion is DENIED.

###

Copy furnished to: 

Jeffrey M. Siskind, Esq.

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 357 Filed 06/04/20 Page 3 of 4
4

Mr. Siskind is directed to serve this order upon all interested parties and file a conforming 

certificate of service.

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 357 Filed 06/04/20 Page 4 of 4