van Bourgondien-Langeveld et al v. van Bourgondien et al

Filing 38

ORDER re 37 Letter filed by Mark Philip van Bourgondien, Petrus Karolus van Bourgondien, Marie-Jose Van Bourgondien, Johanna Maria Anna van Bourgondien-Langeveld: Plaintiffs' letter application dated February 26, 2013, requesting a furthe r extension of time to effect service in connection with their motion to hold defendant John Frederick Van Bourgondien in contempt is denied as untimely. The motion for contempt initiated by order to show cause dated May 17, 2012 is terminated. This termination is without prejudice to renewal. Ordered by Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle on 3/4/2013. (Minerva, Deanna)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
JOHANNA MARIA ANNA van BOURGONDIENLANGEVELD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

ORDER
CV 12-1272 (DRH)(ETB)

JOHN FREDERICK van BOURGONDIEN, et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
By letter application dated February 26, 2013, plaintiffs’ counsel requests a further
extension of time to effect service in connection with their motion to hold defendant John
Frederick Van Bourgondien in contempt, filed on April 30, 2012. See Order to Show Cause
dated May 17, 2012.
The application for an extension is denied as untimely. This is not the first request for
such relief. By Order dated October 4, 2012, plaintiffs were granted a 120-day extension to
effect service. They failed to comply and were granted an additional 30-day extension. See
Order dated Jan. 24, 2013. The within application was filed after the expiration of the 30-day
period and, for that reason, is untimely. See Hnot v. Willis Group Holdings, Ltd., No. 01 Civ.
6558, 2006 WL 2381869, at *3 (S.D.N.Y Aug. 17, 2006) (“[A] scheduling order is the critical
path chosen by a trial judge and the parties to fulfill the mandate of [Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure] 1 in ‘secur[ing] the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action . . .
In order to establish good cause [to modify the scheduling order], the moving party must
demonstrate diligence in its effort to comply with the court-ordered deadlines.”) (citing
Goewey v. United States, 886 F. Supp. 1268, 1283 (D.S.C. 1995) (“A scheduling order is not a

frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without
peril.”) (additional citations omitted).
The motion for contempt initiated by order to show cause dated May 17, 2012 is
terminated. This termination is without prejudice to renewal.

SO ORDERED:
Dated: Central Islip, New York
March 4, 2013
/s/ E. Thomas Boyle
E. THOMAS BOYLE
United States Magistrate Judge