The Estate of Juanita Amelia Jackson v. Sandnes et al

Filing 101

ORDER: Plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Extend Time to File an Amended Complaint 95 is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff has until and including February 21, 2014, to file its Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/13/2014. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
THE ESTATE OF JUANITA AMELIA
JACKSON, by and through CATHY
JACKSON-PLATTS, f/k/a CATHRINE
WHATLEY, Personal Representative,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.

8:13-cv-1133-T-33MAP

MICHAEL SANDNES, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff the
Estate of Juanita Amelia Jackson’s Expedited Motion to Extend
Time to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. # 95), which was filed
on

February

6,

2014.

Defendants

Michael

Sandnes,

Alan

Grochal, and Tydings & Rosenberg, LLC filed a Response in
Opposition to the Motion (Doc. # 96) on February 10, 2014.
Defendants GTCR Fund VI, L.P., GTCR Partners VI, L.P., and
GTCR Golden Rauner, LLC filed a Response in Opposition to the
Motion (Doc. # 99) on February 12, 2014.

Defendants Ventas,

Inc. and Ventas Realty, Limited Partnership filed a Response
in Opposition to the Motion (Doc. # 100) on February 12, 2014.
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants a limited

extension of time, until and including February 21, 2014, for
the Jackson Estate to file an Amended Complaint.
Discussion
In an Order dated February 3, 2014, the Court dismissed
this action without prejudice and with leave to amend by
February 14, 2014. (Doc. # 94). At this juncture, the Jackson
Estate seeks a 90-day extension of time to file the Amended
Complaint based on “upcoming professional obligations in
related proceedings.” (Doc. # 95).

The Court determines that

it is appropriate to grant a limited extension of time for the
Jackson Estate to file an Amended Complaint, but that a 90-day
extension is excessive and unreasonable.
The Court concurs with the analysis provided by the
Ventas Defendants as follows:
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel have elected to
file a multiplicity of actions asserting the same
theories against the same overlapping groups of
defendants. . . . Ventas moved to stay this case
(Doc. # 68) in light of the parallel litigation in
the Bankruptcy Court, but Plaintiff successfully
opposed that motion, arguing that all of these
proceedings must continue simultaneously. (Doc. #
73). Plaintiff, having elected to pursue multiple
and simultaneous cases on the same subject matter,
and having opposed efforts to stay this case,
should not now be permitted to delay these
proceedings because of litigation burdens that
Plaintiff foreseeably created and has imposed upon
all other participants and the Court.
-2-

(Doc. # 100 at 1-2).

The fact that the Jackson Estate faces

the responsibility of diligently prosecuting multiple actions
against

these

defendants

in

various

related

cases

is

a

difficulty of the Jackson Estate’s own design.
In addition, it should be noted that this Court has
altered its Case Management and Scheduling Order so that this
case may proceed on track with the consolidated proceedings
before Judge Williamson (because of the Jackson Estate’s
multiple similar complaints and claims), including a March 14,
2014,

fact

discovery

deadline,

a

May

23,

2014,

expert

discovery deadline, and a June 13, 2014, dispositive motions
deadline, among other deadlines.

(Doc. # 85).

Granting an

extension of time until May 15, 2014, would disrupt the
consolidated

schedule

and

lead

to

uncoordinated

and

inefficient proceedings between this Court and the Bankruptcy
Court.

Notably, when the Ventas Defendants moved for a stay

of this action, the Jackson Estate argued that coordination
with the bankruptcy case required this case to move forward
without delay, in order to avoid “the type of rescheduling
that is directly disfavored in the Middle District.” (Doc. #
73 at 5).

By requesting a three month extension, the Jackson

-3-

Estate

now

seeks

exactly

that

type

of

“disfavored”

rescheduling.
The Court grants the Jackson Estate an extension of time
until

February

extension.1

21,

2014,

but

does

not

grant

a

further

If the Court extended the deadline for the

Jackson Estate to file an Amended Complaint to May 15, 2014,
this case would no longer track the bankruptcy proceedings.
The Court “must take an active role in managing cases on [its]
docket” and enjoys broad discretion “in deciding how best to
manage the cases before [it].”

Chudasama v. Mazda Motor

Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997).

A 90-day

extension of time to file an Amended Complaint is not an
appropriate exercise of that discretion.
Accordingly, the Court will grant the extension motion
only to the extent that the Jackson Estate has until and
including February 21, 2014, to file an Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, it is hereby

1

In the Jackson Estate’s Motion, it mentions multiple
bankruptcy proceedings in Tampa as well as appellate
proceedings in Maryland, which it contends bear on the issues
presented in this case. The Court has determined that it is
not appropriate to allow the Jackson Estate 90 additional days
to file an Amended Complaint.
However, the Court would
consider a Motion to Stay this action, based on those
proceedings, if raised in a timely manner.
-4-

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiff’s Expedited Motion to Extend Time to File an
Amended Complaint (Doc. # 95) is GRANTED to the extent that
Plaintiff has until and including February 21, 2014, to file
its Amended Complaint.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 13th
day of February, 2014.

Copies: All Counsel and Parties of Record

-5-