Dressler v. U.S. Department of Education et al

Filing 60

ORDER granting 58 Defendant Florida Department of Education's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Conduct Rule 26(f) Conference and to Submit Case Management Report. The parties shall have up to and including August 27, 2018 to conduct their case management conference and may conduct the conference by telephone. Plaintiff shall have up to and including October 26, 2018 to identify and serve Defendants Does 1-10. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 8/23/2018. (APH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
SANDRA K. DRESSLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:18-cv-311-FtM-99CM

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, BETSY DEVOS,
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, NAVIENT
CORPORATION, NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, INC., EDUCATION
CREDIT MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, PIONEER
CREDIT RECOVERY, INC.,
EQUIFAX INC., EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC
and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Defendant Florida
Department of Education’s (“Florida DOE”) Motion for Enlargement of Time to
Conduct Rule 26(f) Conference and to Submit Case Management Report filed on
August 20, 2018. Doc. 58. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this case and served nine Defendants on May
4, 2018.

Docs. 1-11.

Defendants Navient (including Navient Corporation and

Navient Solutions, Inc.), Education Credit Management, Florida DOE, and Pioneer
Credit Recovery, Inc. subsequently filed motions to dismiss. Docs. 28, 33, 39, 54.
Florida DOE now requests an extension of time to conduct a case management

conference until seven to ten days after the previous deadline of August 20, 2018. Id.
at 1; Doc. 36 at 4.

Florida DOE also requests to conduct the case management

conference by telephone. Doc. 58 at 4. In support of its request, Florida DOE claims
Plaintiff has not contacted counsel for Florida DOE or Defendants Navient (including
both Navient Corporation and Navient Solutions, Inc.) and Equifax (including both
Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information Services, LLC) to discuss discovery and has not
served all Defendants.

Doc. 58 at 2-3.

Florida DOE previously requested an

extension on June 18, 2018 stating similar concerns regarding Plaintiff failing to
contact Defendants and failing to serve all Defendants. Doc. 32 at 3. Florida DOE
states Plaintiff does not oppose the requested extension. Id.
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 6 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure requires a showing of good cause for extension of a deadline, and Rule
16 requires a finding of good cause to delay the issuance of a scheduling order. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(2). Because the motion is unopposed, and the requested
extension is short, the Court finds good cause to grant a seven-day extension and
allow the parties to conduct the case management conference by telephone.
As Florida DOE states Plaintiff still has not contacted Defendants to discuss
discovery or served all Defendants, Plaintiff is reminded that “the right of selfrepresentation does not exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of
procedural and substantive law.” See Doc. 58 at 2-3; Sanders v. Fluor Daniel, Inc.,

-2-

151 F.R.D. 138, 139 (M.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d sub nom. Sanders v. Fluor Daniels, Inc.,
36 F.3d 93 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th Cir.
1988)). Plaintiff is also required to comply with the Middle District of Florida Local
Rules. Continued failure to comply with the Court’s Order or the Federal or Local
Rules could result in the imposition of sanctions.
Further, under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a plaintiff does
not serve a defendant within ninety days after filing the complaint, the court must
dismiss the action as to that defendant “or order that service be made within a
specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Here, more than ninety days have passed
since Plaintiff filed the Complaint and Plaintiff has not served Does 1-10. However,
because the parties have not exchanged discovery requests, the Court will allow
Plaintiff to identify and serve Defendants Does 1-10 on or before October 26, 2018.
If Plaintiff does not identify and serve Does 1-10 by that date the Court may
recommend dismissal of the Complaint as to Does 1-10.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED:
1.

Motion for Enlargement of Time to Conduct Rule 26(f) Conference and

to Submit Case Management Report (Doc. 58) is GRANTED. The parties shall have
up to and including August 27, 2018 to conduct their case management conference
and may conduct the conference by telephone.

-3-

2.

Plaintiff shall identify and serve Defendants Does 1-10 on or before

October 26, 2018. Failure to effect service by that date may result in the Court
recommending dismissal as to those Defendants.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 23rd day of August, 2018.

Copies:
Counsel of record
Pro se parties

-4-