Aguirre-Molina v. Truscapes SW FLA Inc. et al

Filing 56

ORDER granting 55 the Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 1/10/2017. (HJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ALEJANDRO AGUIRRE-MOLINA,
for himself and on behalf of those
similarly situated
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-608-FtM-38CM

TRUSCAPES SW FLA INC.,
TRUSCAPES INDUSTRIES, INC.
and LLOMELL LORCA,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of the Joint Motion to Extend
Deadlines (Doc. 55) filed on January 9, 2017.

The parties seek to extend the

discovery deadline and all other remaining Court-ordered deadlines accordingly
because the parties desire to reduce unnecessary expenses by conducting depositions
after the parties’ mediation scheduled on January 24, 2017.

Doc. 55 at 2.

Furthermore, the parties state that they need additional time to complete discovery
because this matter was conditionally certified on August 23, 2016.

Id.

On October 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated against Defendants Truscapes SW Fla Inc., Truscapes Industries,
Inc., and Llomell Lorca under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

Doc. 1.

On

April 21, 2016, the Court entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order
(“CMSO”) setting the discovery deadline to January 10, 2017, the mediation deadline

to January 16, 2017, the deadline for dispositive motions to February 10, 2017, and a
trial term of June 5, 2017.

Doc. 47 at 1-2.

On August 23, 2016, United States

District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell accepted and adopted the Report and
Recommendation and granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for
conditional certification of this action as a collective action (Doc. 35).

Doc. 52.

District courts have broad discretion when managing their cases in order to
ensure that the cases move to a timely and orderly conclusion.

Chrysler Int’l Corp.

v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002). Rule 16 requires a showing of
good cause for modification of a court’s scheduling order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

“This good cause standard precludes modification unless the schedule cannot be met
despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.”

Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc.,

133 F. 3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Here, the Court finds good cause to grant the requested extension because this
is the first extension of the CMSO deadlines requested by the parties, and the motion
is unopposed.

The Court, however, reminds the parties that this matter has been

pending since October 2, 2015.

Doc. 1. Given the length of time that this case has

been pending, the Court expects the parties to exercise their diligence in meeting the
extended deadlines.

The parties’ continued diligence and coordination will help

avoid the parties’ future need to file additional motions to extend the deadlines.

-2-

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

The Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines (Doc. 55) is GRANTED.

2.

An amended case management and scheduling order will be issued under

separate cover.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 10th day of January,
2017.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-3-