Agostino v. City of Cape Coral et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension. Plaintiff shall have up to and including April 11, 2017 to respond to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 3/29/2017. (HJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JOSEPH D. AGOSTINO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-135-FtM-99CM

CITY OF CAPE CORAL, CODE
ENFORCEMENT CITY OF CAPE
CORAL, MARINA SAWICKI,
SUZANNE NAUGHTON,
RICHARD LEON, CAROL RALL
and HAROLD S. ESKIN,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff's Motion for
Extension (Doc. 12) filed on March 24, 2017.

On March 6, 2017, Plaintiff, who is

proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against Defendants.

Doc. 1. On March 16,

2017, Defendant City of Cape Coral filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the
Complaint is not sufficient, was not properly served, and fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be grated.
is due March 30, 2017.

Doc. 10. Plaintiff’s response to the Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff seeks to extend the deadline for his response by

twelve (12) days because of his illness. 1 Doc. 12.

Because Plaintiff is proceeding

pro se and shows good cause, the Court will grant the requested relief.

Although Plaintiff does not explicitly state what deadline he is seeking to extend, it
appears that he is seeking to extend the deadline for his response to the Motion to Dismiss.
Doc. 10.
1

The Court reminds Plaintiff, however, that Plaintiff’s motions must comply
with Local Rule 3.01(g).

Local Rule 3.01(g) requires that each motion filed in a civil

case, with certain enumerated exceptions not at issue here, contain a statement
“stating whether counsel agree on the resolution of the motion,” and further provides
that a statement to the effect that counsel for the moving party attempted to confer
with counsel for the opposing party but counsel was unavailable is “insufficient to
satisfy the parties’ obligation to confer.”

M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g).

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff's Motion for Extension (Doc. 12) is GRANTED.

2.

Plaintiff shall have up to and including April 11, 2017 to respond to the

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10).
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 29th day of March, 2017.

Copies:
Counsel of record
Joseph D. Agostino pro se

-2-