Jerozal v. City of Kissimmee Fire Department

Filing 34

ORDER denying 33 Motion to extend time to respond to motion for summary judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 2/4/2016. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
MELANIE JEROZAL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:15-cv-117-Orl-41TBS

CITY OF KISSIMMEE,
Defendant.
ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Two Day
Extension of Time for Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant’s [sic] for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 33). On January 4, 2016, Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment (Doc.
27). 1 Plaintiff’s response to the motion was due no later than February 3 (Doc. 19 at 6).
On January 5, Plaintiff filed a motion for a one week extension of time, to February 10, to
respond to the motion (Doc. 29). As grounds, Plaintiff stated “additional time is needed
to afford the Parties the opportunity to fully explore a potential resolution at mediation
prior to spending a considerable amount of time and resources on Plaintiff’s opposition
brief.” (Doc. 29, ¶ 5). Plaintiff’s attorney represented to the Court that “if no agreement
is reached at mediation, this short extension will still provide the undersigned with
sufficient time to complete a substantive response to Defendant’s Motion.” (Id., ¶ 6).
Then, Plaintiff’s attorney reiterated that “the enlargement will provide Plaintiff’s counsel

This Order does not address Defendant’s amended motion for summary judgment (Doc. 31),
because it is not mentioned in Plaintiff’s motion.
1

with adequate time to prepare a comprehensive response to Defendant’s Motion.” (Id.,
at 2).
All parties have been on notice since the entry of the Case Management and
Scheduling Order that:
Dispositive Motions Deadline and Trial Not Extended –
Motions to extend the dispositive motions deadline or to
continue the trial are generally denied. See Local Rule
3.05(c)(2)(E). The Court will grant an exception only when
necessary to prevent manifest injustice. A motion for a
continuance of the trial is subject to denial if it fails to comply
with Local Rule 3.09. The Court cannot extend a dispositive
motion deadline to the eve of trial. In light of the district
court’s heavy felony trial calendar, at least 3 1/2 months are
required before trial to receive memoranda in opposition to a
motion for summary judgment, and to research and resolve
the dispositive motion sufficiently in advance of trial.
(Doc. 19 at 4).
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time and said in its Order: “No
additional extensions of time will be granted unless necessary to prevent manifest
injustice.” (Doc. 30). Now, Plaintiff’s attorney seeks an additional two day extension “to
process and analyze the numerous deposition transcripts, and because of several other
pre-existing deadlines and commitments in other matters, including depositions and
substantive motion deadlines.” (Doc. 33, ¶ 4). The Court is unable to reconcile this
statement with counsel’s previous representation that a one week extension would give
him adequate time to prepare a response to the motion for summary judgment. And, the
grounds stated in the pending motion do not persuade the Court that a further extension
of time is required to prevent manifest injustice. Therefore, the motion for an additional
two day extension of time is DENIED.

-2-

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 4, 2016.

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

-3-