Richardson v. Thoroughbred Research Group, Inc.

Filing 31

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 28 Joint Motion to Extend Time to Complete Discovery. The Court will enter an Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order under separate cover. Plaintiff shall have up to and including August 21, 2017 to file a motion for class certification. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 7/28/2017. (LS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
GREGG RICHARDSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-656-FtM-99CM

THOROUGHBRED RESEARCH
GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of the Joint Motion to Extend
Time to Complete Discovery (Doc. 28) filed on July 7, 2017. On August 26, 2016,
Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.

Doc. 1.

Defendant filed its Answer and

Affirmative Defenses on September 20, 2016. Doc. 9. On November 18, 2016, the
Court entered its Case Management and Scheduling Order (“CMSO”), setting forth
various case deadlines.

Doc. 22.

The parties now seek to extend the CMSO

deadlines by ninety days. Doc. 28 at 2.
District courts have broad discretion when managing their cases in order to
ensure that 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). “Th[e]
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).
The Court is aware of the procedural history of this case and the parties’ difficulty in
meeting their deadlines. See e.g., Doc. 27. Although the Court finds good cause to
extend the current CMSO deadlines, the parties are reminded that they each have
an obligation to prosecute and defend their respective claims and defenses.
Therefore, the Court is not inclined to grant any further extensions absent
extenuating circumstances.
In addition to the CMSO deadlines, the parties request to extend Plaintiff’s
deadline to file a motion for class certification to October 26, 2017. Doc. 28 at 2.
Middle District of Florida Local Rule 4.04(a) provides that “[w]ithin ninety (90) days
following the filing of the initial complaint in such an action, unless the time is
extended by the Court for cause shown, the named plaintiff or plaintiffs shall move
for a determination under Rule 23(c)(1) as to whether the case is to be maintained as
a class action.”

M.D. Fla. R. 4.04(a).

Coupled with Local Rule 4.04(b)’s time

requirement is also the procedural requirements of Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which requires the Court “[a]t an early practicable time after a person
sues or is sued as a class representative,” to “determine by order whether
to certify the action as a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A). Here, Plaintiff’s
deadline to file a motion for class certification was November 24, 2016. Doc. 1; M.D.
Fla. R. 4.04(a).

-2-

On November 16, 2016, the Court held a preliminary pretrial conference. Doc.
21. During the preliminary pretrial conference, the parties requested that the Court
extend Plaintiff’s deadline to move for class certification to July 1, 2017, three weeks
after their proposed discovery date.

The Court heard counsel’s reasoning, but

addressed its concerns that such a delayed deadline would impede the Court’s ability
to determine by order, at an early practicable time, whether to certify the action as a
class action. Accordingly, the Court, with the parties’ agreement, set “end of March
2017” as the deadline for Plaintiff to move for class certification. 1
In the present motion, the parties rightly point out that they requested a July
1, 2017 deadline during the preliminary pretrial conference, but do not acknowledge
the Court’s March 2017 deadline. Doc. 28 at 2 n.1. The parties state that they have
been operating as if the class certification deadline was July 1, 2017. Id. In any
event, the parties are correct that the CMSO does not list either a March 2017 or a
July 1, 2017 deadline for a motion for class certification. Even if the parties were
correct in their assumption, they did not file the present motion until after the
expiration of the July 1, 2017 deadline. Thus, by either deadline, the present motion
is untimely.
Rule 6, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires a showing of excusable
neglect when, as here, a party files a motion after the time for filing such motion has
expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). When evaluating whether a party has shown
excusable neglect, the Court considers “‘the danger of prejudice to the nonmovant,
The undersigned listened to the digital recording from the November 16, 2016
deadline to confirm the exchange between the Court and the parties.
1

-3-

the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reasons
for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant,
and whether the movant acted in good faith.’” Advanced Estimating Sys., Inc. v.

Riney, 130 F.3d. 996, 997-98 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting Pioneer Investment Servs. v.
Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993)).
Here, given the Defendant’s consent to the request, the Court finds no
prejudice to the nonmovant. The parties offer no reasons for their delay in filing the
instant motion. 2 The Court, however, finds that a long extension of the deadline for
filing a motion for class certification will impact the judicial proceedings.

The

parties request that the Court set October 26, 2017 as the new deadline for filing a
motion for class certification, and November 5, 2017 as the new deadline for filing
dispositive motions.

Doc. 28 at 2.

These deadlines are a mere ten days apart.

“Rule 23 contemplates that the class certification decision will be made prior to the
close of discovery.” Prado-Steiman ex rel. Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1273 (11th
Cir. 2000) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)).
for class certification impede

a

court’s

Moreover, “[d]elays in filing a motion
ability

to

resolve

the

issues

of class certification and may prejudice the rights of the putative class members.”

Lopez v. Scott, No. 215-cv-303-FtM-38-MRM, 2016 WL 3647792, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June
16, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, No. 215-cv-303-FtM-38MRM, 2016
WL 3570957 (M.D. Fla. July 1, 2016) (citing Jones v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest,

In fact, the present motion does not comply with Local Rule 3.01(a), which requires
“a memorandum of legal authority in support of the request,” in addition to the relief
requested and the basis for the request. M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(a).
2

-4-

243 F.R.D. 694, 695 (N.D. Fla. 2006)). Therefore, the Court will extend the current
CMSO deadlines according to the parties’ requests, but Plaintiff shall have up to and
including August 21, 2017 to move for class certification.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Joint Motion to Extend Time to Complete Discovery (Doc. 28) is

GRANTED in part.

The Court will enter an Amended Case Management and

Scheduling Order under separate cover.
2.

Plaintiff shall have up to and including August 21, 2017 to file a motion

for class certification.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 28th day of July, 2017.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-5-