DESIR
v.
LVNV FUNDING, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' motion for an extension of time.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and the defendants moved for an extension to respond, certifying they could not confer with the plaintiff. T…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bad Faith cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an Amended Complaint on December 19, 2022. (Dkt. 21.) On January 3, 2023, Defendants moved to extend their deadline to answer or otherwise respond. (Dkt. 22.) In their motion, Defendants certified that they had been unable to confer with Plaintiff regarding her position on the extension as required by Middle District of Florida Local Rule 3.01(g). (Id.) The court thereafter granted Defendants’ motion and extended the deadline by which Defendants must answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint until February 2, 2023. (Dkt. 23.) Plaintiff has now filed an opposition, objection, and motion to strike Defendants’ motion to extend their time to respond to the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 22). (Motion, Dkt. 25.) Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ attorney’s statements in their motion are non-admissible hearsay, Defendants’ motion was made for the purposes of delay and in bad faith, Plaintiff informed Defendants’ counsel of her objection to the requested extension prior to Defendants’ motion being filed, and the court’s order granting Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 23) was improper. (Id.) Plaintiff also argues that
Defendants are in default for their failure to respond to the Amended Complaint within the prescribed time and Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit of damages in support thereof. (Id.; Dkt. 24.) In light of the court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to extend their time to answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 23), Plaintiff’s
opposition, objection, and motion to strike Defendants’ motion for an extension of time (Dkt. 25) is DENIED. Courts enjoy broad discretion in how to best manage the cases before them. Chudusama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F. 3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997); see Patterson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 901 F. 2d 927, 929 (11th Cir. 1990). In exercising
that discretion, a court may, for good cause, extend the time concerning when an act must be done within a specific time if the request is made before the original time or its extension expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). The court exercised its discretion in granting Defendants’ motion for an extension of time and in accordance with the court’s prior order, Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended
Complaint on or before February 2, 2023. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 24, 2023.
. af yee JULIE §. SNEED
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bhupendra Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997)
- Patterson v. United States Postal Serv., 901 F.2d 927 (11th Cir. 1990)