Schwartz v. The Bank of America Pension Plan for Legacy Companies - Fleet et al
ORDER granting 24 Motion to Extend Time to Comply with Related Case Order and Track Two Notice. The parties must conduct the case management conference by May 23, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 4/13/2018. (DMP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
STUART R. SCHWARTZ,
Case No.: 8:17-cv-2858-T-36AAS
THE BANK OF AMERICA PENSION PLAN
FOR LEGACY COMPANIES – FLEET;
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION;
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
CORPORATE BENEFITS COMMITTEE
as Plan Administrator; and
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Trustee,
The defendants move for an extension of time to conduct the case management conference
required by Local Rule 3.05. (Doc. 24). Mr. Schwartz objects. (Doc. 26).
Mr. Schwartz initiated this cause of action against the defendants seeking to recover
benefits owed under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) plan, damages for
breach of contract, and damages for violations of 29 U.S.C. Section 1001. (Doc. 1). On February
22, 2018, Mr. Schwartz filed waivers of the service of summons from each of the defendants.
(Docs. 10–14). When a plaintiff files a waiver of service of summons, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure apply as if a summons and complaint had been served at the time of filing the waiver.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(4). Therefore, under Rule 4, Mr. Schwartz served the defendants on February
This case is designated as a Track Two case under the Local Rule 3.05. (Doc. 6). Under
Local Rule 3.05(c)(2)(B), counsel and unrepresented parties in a Track Two case must meet within
sixty days after service of the complaint on a defendant for the purpose of preparing and filing a
case management report. Therefore, under Local Rule 3.05, the defendants’ counsel and Mr.
Schwartz must conduct a case management conference by April 24, 2018—sixty days after Mr.
Schwartz effectively served the defendants.
The defendants request that the deadline to conduct the case management conference be
extended to May 23, 2018. (Doc. 24, p. 3). The defendants request this extension because the
defendants moved to re-designate this case as a Track One case. (Id. at 2). According to the
defendants, if the Court re-designates this case as Track One, that would “obviate the need” for
the parties to comply with the current Track Two schedule. (Id.). In response, Mr. Schwartz
argues Local Rule 3.05(c)(2)(B) states that a case management conference must occur within sixty
days after service of the complaint regardless of any undecided motions; therefore, the defendants’
motion should be denied. (Doc. 26).
When an act must be done within a specified time, the court may grant an extension of time
for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). To establish good cause, the moving party must show
that the current schedule could not be met despite the moving party’s diligence. Ashmore v. Sec’y,
Dep’t of Transp., 503 F. App’x 683, 685 (11th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). When a request for
an extension of time is made before the applicable deadline has passed, the extension should
normally be granted in the absence of bad faith or prejudice to the adverse party. Ahanchian v.
Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); see also Rachel v.
Trout, 820 F.3d 390, 394 (10th Cir. 2016) (stating that “district courts should normally grant
extension requests, made before the deadline, in the absence of bad faith by the requesting party
or prejudice to another party”) (citation omitted).
Here, the defendants established good cause to extend the deadline to conduct the case
management conference to May 23, 2018. If the Court re-designates this case as Track One, that
decision would change the scope of discovery.
Also, extending the deadline for the case
management conference to May 23rd would not prejudice Mr. Schwartz. However, absent
exceptional circumstances, the court will not further extend this deadline.
Upon consideration, the defendants’ request for an extension of time to conduct the case
management conference is made in good faith and the requested extension does not prejudice Mr.
Schwartz. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Comply
with Related Case Order and Track Two Notice (Doc. 24) is GRANTED. The parties must
conduct the case management conference required by Local Rule 3.05 by May 23, 2018.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on this 13th day of April, 2018.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?