HSBC Bank USA v. Bedasee et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting 20 Defendants' Motion for Three Days Expansion of Time to File Reply to Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendants shall have up to and including April 2, 2018 to file an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 3/26/2018. (DRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee under the
pooling and servicing agreement dated
as of November 1, 2005, Freemont
Home Loan Trust 2005-D
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-720-FtM-29CM

OWEN BEDASEE and SANDIE
BEDASEE,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendants' Motion for
Three Days Expansion of Time to File Reply to Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 20) filed
on March 23, 2018, construed as a motion to extend the time to file an Answer to
Plaintiff’s Complaint. When Defendants’ initial reply to Plaintiff’s Complaint was
stricken on March 9, 2018, the Court ordered Defendants to file an Answer in
compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within fourteen (14) days. Doc.
19. Defendants seek to extend the deadline for the Answer by three (3) days because
it took five (5) days for the Defendants to receive the Court’s Order from March 9,
2018, and prolonged computer use to review, correct, and compile the Answer has an
adverse effect on Defendant Owen Bedasee’s eyes. See Doc. 20 at 1-2. Because
Defendants are currently proceeding pro se and show good cause, the Court will grant
the requested relief. Although the Defendants are requesting three (3) additional

days, the Court will allow a total of ten (10) additional days to provide sufficient time
for Defendants to receive notice of this Order. Defendants shall therefore have up
to and including April 2, 2018 to file their Answer.
Defendants should be mindful that even if they are proceeding pro se, they
“must follow the rules of procedure,” and “the district court has no duty to act as a
pro se party’s lawyer.” United States v. Hung Thien Ly, 646 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th
Cir. 2011); Harvick v. Oak Hammock Pres. Cmty. Ass’n Inc., No. 6:14-cv-937, 2015
WL 667984, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2015).

Accordingly, the Court reminds

Defendants that their 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
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). Defendants’ inability to communicate with Plaintiff’s counsel due to the
“time of day” is likewise insufficient.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Defendants' Motion for Three Days Expansion of Time to File Reply to
Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 20) is GRANTED. Defendants have up to and including
April 2, 2018 to file their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 26th day of March, 2018.

-2-

Copies:
Counsel of record
Owen Bedasee
1070 27th St SW
Naples, FL 34117
Sandie Bedasee
1070 27th St SW
Naples, FL 34117

-3-