Durosier v. Department of Children and Family Services

Filing 42

ORDER Closing Case. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 10/15/2014. (sry)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 13-62002-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
BETTY DUROSIER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Defendant.
____________________________/
ORDER CLOSING CASE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court following its September 23, 2014, Order
Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 40] (“Order”) and upon Plaintiff’s Motion to
Extend Filing Date of Filing Amended Complaint to October 16, 2014 Instead of
October 14, 2014 [DE 41] (“Motion”). In the Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s
Complaint without prejudice. See DE 40 at 6. The Court allowed Plaintiff, “[b]y no later
than October 14, 2014,” to “file an Amended Complaint consistent with this Order.” Id.
“If Plaintiff does not timely file an Amended Complaint,” the Court further explained,
“this case will be closed.” Id.
Despite having been granted three weeks to do so, Plaintiff did not timely file an
Amended Complaint. Instead, the day after the October 14 amendment deadline,
Plaintiff filed the Motion seeking a two-day extension to file an Amended Complaint.
See DE 41 at 1. The only tangible argument Plaintiff offers in support of this request
is that Plaintiff’s counsel “received additional information from client that will cure
deficiencies in complaint and provided those to [counsel] late October 14, 2014.” Id.

Yet Plaintiff neither describes this information nor gives any reason why Plaintiff could
not have provided it earlier. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (requiring “good cause” for
modifying a case schedule); Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir.
1998) (per curiam) (explaining that the “good cause standard precludes modification
[of a scheduling order] unless the schedule cannot be met despite the diligence of the
party seeking the extension” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Plaintiff also fails to
explain how this “new” information will remedy the substantial defects in the Complaint.
See DE 40 at 4-5. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Filing Date of Filing Amended Complaint to October
16, 2014 Instead of October 14, 2014 [DE 41] is hereby DENIED; and

2.

The Clerk shall CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT all pending motions.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,

Florida, this 15th day of October, 2014.

Copies provided to:
Counsel of record via CM/ECF

2