Scoma Chiropractic, P.A. v. Jackson Hewitt Inc. et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting 15 Defendants, Jackson Hewitt, Inc. and Jackson Hewitt Technology Services, LLC's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint; granting 18 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Conduct Rule 26(F) Conferen ce Telephonically. Defendants Jackson Hewitt, Inc. and Jackson Hewitt Technology Services, LLC's shall have up to and including March 20, 2017 to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint. See Order for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 2/8/2017. (LS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a
Florida corporation, individually and
as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-24-FtM-38CM

JACKSON HEWITT INC.,
JACKSON HEWITT
TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC,
ASTRO TAX SERVICES LLC and
JOHN DOES 1-5,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendants, Jackson
Hewitt, Inc. and Jackson Hewitt Technology Services, LLC’s Unopposed Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint (Doc. 15) and Plaintiff’s Unopposed
Motion to Conduct Rule 26(F) Conference Telephonically (Doc. 18) filed on February
7, 2017.

Defendants Jackson Hewitt, Inc. and Jackson Hewitt Technology Services,

LLC’s (“Defendants”) current deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is February
9, 2017.

Doc. 15 at 1.

Defendants request a sixty-day extension of time to respond

to the Complaint so they can investigate the factual allegations, review internal
documents, and evaluate the claims and defenses that may be available.

Id. at 2.

Plaintiff does not object to the extension sought, and the Court finds good cause to
grant the extension.

Plaintiff requests that the parties be permitted to conduct the Rule 26(f)
conference telephonically because Plaintiff’s counsel is located in Chicago, Illinois and
Defendants’ counsel is located in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Court will grant this request.

Doc. 18 at 1.

The

The parties are reminded, however, that

notwithstanding the enlargement of time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint,
the parties must comply with the timing requirements for conducting their Rule 26(f)
conference and filing their case management report as set forth in the Related Case
Order and Track Two Notice (Doc. 8).
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Defendants, Jackson Hewitt, Inc. and Jackson Hewitt Technology

Services, LLC’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint
(Doc. 15) is GRANTED.

Defendants Jackson Hewitt, Inc. and Jackson Hewitt

Technology Services, LLC’s shall have up to and including March 20, 2017 to respond
to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
2.

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Conduct Rule 26(F) Conference

Telephonically (Doc. 18) is GRANTED
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 8th day of February,
2017.

Copies: Counsel of record

-2-