Patras-Venetis v. Vasilakos

Filing 24

ORDER granting 23 the Joint Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadlines and to Continue Final Pretrial Conference and Trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 5/19/2017. (HJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JOANNE PATRAS-VENETIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-13-FtM-99CM

ANASTASIOS VASILAKOS,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of the Joint Motion to Extend
Pretrial Deadlines and to Continue Final Pretrial Conference and Trial (Doc. 23) filed
on May 18, 2017.

The parties seek to extend the Court-ordered deadlines by six (6)

months because Defendant filed extensive counter-claims against Plaintiff, and
Plaintiff recently hired new counsel.
additional three days for trial.

Doc. 23 at 2-3.

The parties also seek an

Id. at 3.

On March 23, 2017, Senior United States District Judge John E. Steele entered
a Case Management and Scheduling Order (“CMSO”) setting the deadlines to disclose
expert reports for the parties to August 1, 2017 and for rebuttal to August 15, 2017,
the discovery deadline to September 22, 2017, the mediation deadline to October 6,
2017, the deadline for dispositive motions to October 13, 2017, and a trial term of
March 5, 2018.

Doc. 15 at 1-2.

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 based upon
the parties’ representations.

Doc. 23.

Furthermore, this is the first extension of

the CMSO deadlines requested by the parties.

Id.

Given the length of the

extension, however, the Court expects the parties to exercise their diligence in
meeting the extended deadlines.

The parties point out that the case as rescheduled

still will be on track to be completed within two (2) years of the initial filing, as
contemplated under Local Rule 3.05(c)(2)(E).

Id. at 3.

The parties’ continued

diligence and coordination will help avoid the parties’ future need to file additional
motions to extend the deadlines.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

The Joint Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadlines and to Continue Final

Pretrial Conference and Trial (Doc. 23) 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 19th day of May, 2017.

-2-

Copies:
Counsel of record

-3-