Brewer et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 34

ORDER dismissing case Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 4/17/2013. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
ROBERT D. BREWER, et al,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 6:12-cv-1633-Orl-37GJK

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a status review. A brief history of the case shows
the following:
1.

Complaint filed October 31, 2012.

2.

Case dismissed December 12, 2012 (Doc 16) - facts alleged in the complaint

insufficient to determine subject matter jurisdiction.
3.

Amended Complaint filed January 14, 2013 (Doc 17)

4.

Order to Show Cause (Doc 23) February 20, 2013 - failure to file CMR;

response filed four days after the deadline
5.

Case dismissed March 13, 2013 (Doc 30). Amended Complaint due March

29, 2013.
6.

Motion to Extend Deadline (Doc 32) filed March 28, 2013, the day prior to the

due date for filing the Amended Complaint. This document was not signed. Order denying
motion (Doc 33) was entered April 12, 2013. The Court also notes that counsel failed to
comply with local rule 3.01(g). An “attempt to confer” is not adequate. See, CMSO II (A)
(Doc 29). Nor has counsel notified the Court of any further effort to follow up with defense

counsel as suggested in the insufficient 3.01(g) certification affixed to his unsigned motion.
Plaintiff in his unsigned motion states that the extension is necessary partially
because of out of town travel, intervening holidays and partially due to the press of other
professional commitments. Counsel is reminded that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16,
states that deadlines set by the Court may be modified only for good cause, and only when
they “cannot ‘be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’ ” Sosa v.
Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998). The Court finds that Plaintiff has
failed to show good cause and the conduct of this case indicates a lack of diligence on the
part of counsel. Upon notification that the motion (Doc 32) was not signed and denied (Doc
33), counsel has done nothing. There has been no amended motion nor has the required
amended complaint been filed. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure
to comply with orders of the Court, the local rules and lack of diligent prosecution. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida, this 17th day of April, 2013.

Copies to:

Counsel of Record