Humphrey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 29

ORDER denying 28 Motion to extend time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 8/28/2017. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
ANTHONY HUMPHREY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:16-cv-1521-Orl-40TBS

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court without oral argument on the parties’ Joint
Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines (Doc. 28). In the motion, the parties ask
the Court to enlarge the time to complete mediation and file dispositive motions (Id., ¶ 1).
As grounds, they represent that they have scheduled depositions to occur on August 29
and September 7, 2017, and that they are currently engaged in settlement discussions
(Id., ¶ 2). Although paragraph one of the motion speaks only to the deadlines to complete
mediation and file dispositive motions, it is apparent that the parties also want to extend
the dates for the final pretrial conference and the trial term (Id., ¶ 5).
Local Rule 3.01(a) provides:
In a motion or other application for an order, the movant shall
include a concise statement of the precise relief requested, a
statement of the basis for the request, and a memorandum of
legal authority in support of the request, all of which the
movant shall include in a single document not more than
twenty-five (25) pages.
M.D. Fla. 3.01(a). The motion is fatally deficient because it does not include a
memorandum of law.

All of the deadlines the parties seek to extend were established in the Court’s
Case Management and Scheduling Order (“CMSO”) (Doc. 24). The CMSO can only be
modified “upon a showing of good cause.” FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b). “This good cause
standard precludes modification unless the schedule cannot ‘be met despite the diligence
of the party seeking the extension.’” Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418
(11th Cir. 1998) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 16 advisory committee note). “’If [a] party was not
diligent, the [good cause] inquiry should end.’” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The parties’ motion fails because it
does not address their diligence to this point or otherwise show good cause.
The CMSO states:
1. Dispositive Motions Deadline and Trial Not Extended –
Motions to extend the dispositive motions deadline or to
continue 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
motions deadline to the eve of trial. In light of the district court’s
heavy felony trial calendar, at least 4 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.
2. Extensions of Other Deadlines Disfavored – Motions for an
extension of other deadlines established in this order,
including motions for an extension of the discovery period, are
disfavored. The deadline will not be extended absent a
showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Failure to
complete discovery within the time established by this Order
shall not constitute good cause for continuance. A motion to
extend an established deadline normally will be denied if the
motion fails to recite that: 1) the additional discovery is
necessary for specified reasons; 2) all parties agree that the
extension will not affect the dispositive motions deadline and
trial date; 3) all parties agree that any discovery conducted
after the dispositive motions date established in this Order will
not be available for summary judgment purposes; and 4) no

-2-

party will use the granting of the extension in support of a
motion to extend another date or deadline. The movant must
show that the failure to complete discovery is not the result of
lack of diligence in pursuing discovery. Local Rule 3.09(b).
The filing of a motion for extension of time does not toll the
time for compliance with deadlines established by Rule or
Order.
(Id., at 6). The parties’ motion fails to show why manifest injustice will result if the
dispositive motions deadline and trial date are not moved. And, as already noted, the
motion fails to show that the parties do not find themselves in their current situation
through lack of diligence.
For all of these reasons, the motion is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 28, 2017.

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

-3-