Appellate Court Order directly violates a local rule

In addition to all the reasons I mentioned about how outrageous was granting the motion to postpone the due date of the defendant's brief until ruling on the frivolous dismissal motion in posts like this

http://ontcposts.blogspot.com/2013/12/layer-under-layer-of-outrageousness.html it turned out that there is also local court rule regarding such request which that order directly violated . The 11th Cir. R. 31-1 (c) Rule titled "Effect of Other Pending Motions on Time for Serving and Filing Brief" clearly states that "Except as otherwise provided in this rule, a pending motion does not postpone the time for serving and filing any brief."
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/documents/pdfs/RulesDEC13.pdf 
(Go to "FRAP 31")

The exceptions mentioned were two related to criminal appeals and replacement briefs. Neither one of those two exceptions apply here.

The word "Other" was used in the title because in the preceding Cir. R. 31-1 (b) Rule titled "Pending Motions" the motions that require putting off counting for the due date to file a brief until ruling on these motions were listed and also none of them apply on that frivolous dismissal motion or any dismissal motion in general.