SCAROLA v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, 2:10-cv-677-FtM-29SPC. (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20120423614
Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 20, 2012
Summary: ORDER SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, Magistrate Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension for Filing (Doc. #62) filed on April 17, 2012. Plaintiff pro se Frank Scarola, brought this action against Defendant, Deutsche Bank, alleging fraud. Plaintiff has subsequently amended his complaint two times to correct pleading defects. Defendant, in response to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint on March 1,
Summary: ORDER SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, Magistrate Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension for Filing (Doc. #62) filed on April 17, 2012. Plaintiff pro se Frank Scarola, brought this action against Defendant, Deutsche Bank, alleging fraud. Plaintiff has subsequently amended his complaint two times to correct pleading defects. Defendant, in response to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint on March 1, 2..
More
ORDER
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension for Filing (Doc. #62) filed on April 17, 2012. Plaintiff pro se Frank Scarola, brought this action against Defendant, Deutsche Bank, alleging fraud. Plaintiff has subsequently amended his complaint two times to correct pleading defects. Defendant, in response to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint on March 1, 2012. (Doc. # 60). Plaintiff failed to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss and the District Court then gave Plaintiff until April 20, 2012 to file his response. (Doc. #61). Plaintiff now requests a 60-day extension of time to file a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. As grounds, Plaintiff notes that he did not receive the order from the District Court directing a response until April 10, 2012. Plaintiff also alleges that he never received a copy of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
Under Federal Rule 6(b) the Court may enlarge the time to file a responsive pleading for cause shown. The Rule reads in pertinent part:
[w]hen by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may at anytime in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.
Fed. R. Civ. P 6(b). As it is within the Court's discretion to allow an extension of time, the Court finds good cause to grant in part Plaintiff's Motion. The Court will allow Plaintiff an additional 30 days to file a response.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff's Motion for Extension for Filing (Doc. #62) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall have up to and including May 21, 2012 to file a response to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #60).
(2) The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #60) to Plaintiff.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
