Swift v. Dreambuilder Investments, LLC et al

Filing 32

ORDER: Plaintiff Michael Swift's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Keep Case Open 31 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/12/2014. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MICHAEL SWIFT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:14-cv-1103-T-33AEP

DREAMBUILDER INVESTMENTS, LLC,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Swift’s Unopposed
Motion for Extension of Time to Keep Case Open (Doc. # 31),
which was filed on September 10, 2014.

As explained below,

the Court denies the Motion without prejudice.
Discussion
Swift filed a Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act
and

Telephone

Consumer

Protection

Act

case

against

Dreambuilder Investments, LLC, Land/Home Financial Services,
Inc., and BP Law Group, LLP on May 9, 2014. (Doc. # 1).
Dreambuilder is in default (the Clerk having entered a Rule
55(a)

Clerk’s

Default

on

June

26,

2014)

and

Land/Home

Financial filed an Answer on July 14, 2014. (Doc. ## 14, 15).
On July 14, 2014, Swift filed a Notice of Pending
Settlement pursuant to Local Rule 3.08, M.D. Fla., as to BP
Law Group, LLP, indicating: “Plaintiff and Defendant, BP Law

Group, LLP . . . have reached a verbal settlement with regard
to Plaintiff’s claims against BP Law Group only, and Plaintiff
and BP Law Group are presently drafting, finalizing, and
executing

a

written

settlement

agreement

and

release

of

liability.” (Doc. # 16).
On July 15, 2014, the Court entered an Order as follows:
That on the basis of Plaintiff’s Notice of Pending
Settlement as to BP Law Group, LLP [16], this case
is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice and subject
to the right of the parties, within SIXTY (60) days
of the date hereof, to submit a stipulated form of
final order or judgment, or request an extension of
time, should they so choose or for any party to
move to reopen the action, upon good cause being
shown as to BP Law Group, LLP ONLY.
After that
SIXTY (60) day period, however, without further
order, this dismissal (as to BP Law Group, LLP
ONLY) shall be deemed with prejudice. This action
remains pending as between Plaintiff Michael Swift
and Defendants Dreambuilder Investments, LLC and
Land/Home Financial Services, Inc.
(Doc. # 17).
At this juncture, Swift seeks an Order extending the
aforementioned

60-day

deadline

to

“allow

Plaintiff

and

Defendant, BP Law Group, LLP, the necessary time to draft,
finalize, and fulfil the terms of the parties’ confidential
settlement agreement.” (Doc. # 31).

Notably, Swift does not

specify any duration for the requested extension.

Although

the requested extension is unopposed, the Court denies the
Motion because it is an open-ended extension. The Court “must
-2-

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).

The Court determines that an

order granting the open-ended extension requested in the
Motion would be issued in contravention of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 1, which requires the Court to construe the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiff Michael Swift’s Unopposed Motion for Extension
of Time to Keep Case Open (Doc. # 31) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
12th day of September, 2014.

Copies to: All Counsel and Parties of Record

-3-