Nieves-Segura v. Aldi, Inc., 6:17-cv-2119-Orl-28TBS. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20180214d00
Visitors: 4
Filed: Feb. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . This case comes before the Court without a hearing on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to Effectuate Case Management Conference and Produce Case Management Report (Doc. 18). The motion seeks an extension of 30 days from the date of any order granting it to conduct the initial case management conference and file the parties' case management report ( Id. ). As grounds, Plaintiff says the parties were engaged in settlement negotiat
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . This case comes before the Court without a hearing on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to Effectuate Case Management Conference and Produce Case Management Report (Doc. 18). The motion seeks an extension of 30 days from the date of any order granting it to conduct the initial case management conference and file the parties' case management report ( Id. ). As grounds, Plaintiff says the parties were engaged in settlement negotiati..
More
ORDER
THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
This case comes before the Court without a hearing on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to Effectuate Case Management Conference and Produce Case Management Report (Doc. 18). The motion seeks an extension of 30 days from the date of any order granting it to conduct the initial case management conference and file the parties' case management report (Id.). As grounds, Plaintiff says the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations which it was hoped, would resolve the case without the need for compliance with the Related Case Order and Track Two Notice (Id.).
Rule 16(b)(2) states that "[t]he judge must issue the scheduling order as soon as practicable, but unless the judge finds good cause for delay, the judge must issue it within the earlier of 90 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days after any defendant has appeared." Plaintiff's rationale, while understandable, does not constitute good cause. No return of service has been filed but, Defendant appeared through counsel on January 5, 2018 (Doc. 7). Consequently, the Court has through March 6, 2018 to comply with Rule 16(b)(2).
So that Court has sufficient time to fulfill its responsibility, the motion is GRANTED in part. The parties have through February 23, 2018 to conduct their initial case management conference and file their case management report.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
