Longhini v. Benji & Glenji, Inc. et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g) 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Comply with Mediation Deadline and Motion for Court to Assign Mediator. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 2/6/2018. (HJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DOUG LONGHINI, an individual
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-353-FtM-38CM

BENJI & GLENJI, INC. and
RODES FARMS, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Enlargement of Time to Comply with Mediation Deadline and Motion for Court to
Assign Mediator (Doc. 16) filed on February 5, 2018.

On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff

filed his first motion for extension of time to comply with the mediation deadline and
the Court’s appointment of a mediator in this case because the parties are unable to
agree to a mediator or date.

Doc. 14 at 1. The motion stated that although Plaintiff

made “a good faith attempt to verify whether or not this Motion and the relief
requested is unopposed by Defendants via their counsel,” Defendants’ counsel did not
respond.

Id. at 2. Accordingly, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s first

motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g).

Doc. 15. Plaintiff filed the

present motion seeking the same relief based on the same ground as his first motion.
Doc. 16.

The present motion again states that although Plaintiff made a good faith

attempt to confer with the opposing counsel, the opposing counsel has not responded
yet.

Id. at 2.

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).

As one court in this district has held, “an attempt to confer does not satisfy
Local Rule 3.01(g).” Knights Armament Co. v. Optical Sys. Tech., Inc., 254 F.R.D.
470, 472 (M.D. Fla. 2008).
conference.”

Instead, Local Rule 3.01(g) “requires an actual

Maronda Homes, Inc. of Fla. v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., No. 6:14-

cv-1287-Orl-31TBS, 2015 WL 77986, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2015).

When opposing

counsel is unwilling or unable to confer before a motion is filed, the movant “must
‘expeditiously’ contact opposing counsel and ‘supplement the motion promptly with a
statement certifying whether or to what extent the parties have resolved the issue(s)
presented in the motion.’”

Id. Here, based on Plaintiff’s representation, it is not

clear whether Plaintiff’s counsel is aware of his obligation under Local Rule 3.01(g).
Accordingly, the Court will deny without prejudice the present motion and direct
Plaintiff’s counsel to properly comply with Local Rule 3.01(g).

The Court further

notes that Defendants’ counsel has a duty to promptly respond to Plaintiff’s counsel
when Plaintiff’s counsel seeks to meet and confer before a motion is filed. Maronda

Homes, Inc. of Fla., 2015 WL 77986, at *3.

-2-

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to Comply with Mediation Deadline
and Motion for Court to Assign Mediator (Doc. 16) is DENIED without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 6th day of February,
2018.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-3-