Peacock v. Brooks et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying 24 Motion to extend time to conduct initial case management deadline. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 1/26/2018. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
MICHAEL Q. PEACOCK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:17-cv-1733-Orl-41TBS

PAUL JOHN BROOKS, GARRISON
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY and
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court without a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify
Case Management Schedule (Doc. 24). Plaintiff asks the Court to extend, for
“approximately a month,” the deadline for the parties to conduct their initial case
management conference (Id., at 1). The conference was supposed to occur within “45
days after service or appearance of any defendant” (Doc. 7 at 1). Defendant Garrison
Property and Casualty Insurance Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses on
November 6, 2017 (Doc. 10). Accordingly, the initial conference should have been held
no later than December 20, 2017. The conference has not been held and the parties are
in violation of the Related Case Order and Track Two Notice (Doc. 7). The motion is
DENIED because no showing has been made why the initial conference was not
conducted last year.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) provides that a court may extend time
“on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable

neglect.” Deciding whether excusable neglect exists “requires an examination into
whether the moving party had a good reason for not responding timely and whether the
opposing party would be prejudiced.” In re HealthSouth Corp. Sec. Litig., 334 F. Appx.
248, 253 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that excusable neglect did not warrant enlargement of
opt-out time). The relevant factors for excusable neglect are (1) the danger of prejudice,
(2) the length of delay and its potential impact on the proceedings, (3) the reason for the
delay, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Id.; Walter v. Blue Cross & Blue
Shield United of Wis., 181 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Cir.1999) (citing Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co.
v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993)). The motion is DENIED because
Plaintiff has failed to address these factors.
The ground for the motion is that the law firm representing Plaintiff has merged
with another firm, and it is uncertain whether Plaintiff’s current lawyer will stay on the case
or if it will be reassigned to a different lawyer in the merged firm (Doc. 24, ¶¶ 3-5). The
motion is DENIED because no motion to withdraw or substitute counsel has been filed
and, unless and until the Court grants such a motion Plaintiff’s current lawyer is counsel
in this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 26, 2018.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-2-