ORDER

ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.

This cause came before the Court pursuant to the Amended Motion for Continuance of Trial, Pre-Trail and Extension of Deadline, and Dispositive Motion Deadline ancJ Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 44) (the "Motion to Continue Trial"), the Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Deadline for Expert Disclosures and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 46) (the "Motion to Extend Expert Deadlines"), and the Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Deadline to File Second Amended Complaint and Motion for Extension of Expert Disclosure Deadlines and to Deem Timely Filed (Doc. No. 47) (the "Motion to Extend Complaint Deadline") (collectively, the "Motions to Continue") filed by the Plaintiff, Timber Pines Plaza, LLC (the "Plaintiff" or "Timber Pines"), and the Kinsale's Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 52) (the "Motion for Summary Judgment"), the Kinsale's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint with Prejudice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 55) (the "Motion to Dismiss"), and the responses to the Motions to Continue (Doc. Nos. 49, 56, and 57) (the "Responses") filed by the Defendant, Kinsale Insurance Company (the "Defendant" or "Kinsale"). The Court has considered the motions, the responses, as well as the docket as a whole, and for the reasons set forth below, the Motions to Continue are GRANTED, the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as set forth herein.

The Plaintiff commenced this case by filing a complaint (Doc. No. 1) (the "Complaint") against the Defendant for breach of an insurance policy (the "Policy") on August 5, 2015. On Oecember 1, 2015, the Court entered the Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 13) (the "CMSO"), which established a discovery deadline of June 20, 2016, a dispositive motion deadline of July 18, 2016, and a trial date of November 7, 2016. In the meantime, on February 4, 2016, the Court entered an order dismissing the Complaint without prejudice (Doc. No. 14) (the "First Dismissal Order"). As noted in the First Dismissal Order, the Complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to enable the Court to determine what provisions of the Policy the Plaintiff claimed had been breached and, as a result, failed to state a claim.

On March 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Doc. No. 19) (the "FAC"). The FAG clarifies that the Plaintiff is attempting to recover under the Policy's "sinkhole collapse" exception, which provides coverage for losses caused by a sudden sinking or collapse. On June 28, 2016, this Court entered an Order (Doc. No. 40) (the "Second Dismissal Order") dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for failing to allege that its losses were caused by a sudden sinking or collapse. The Second Dismissal Order represented the Court's first opportunity to provide the parties with clear guidance regarding the meaning of the "sinkhole collapse" exception. Unfortunately for both parties, the Court was not in a position to enter the Second Dismissal Order until after the discovery deadline set forth in the CMSO, and only five months before trial. Clearly, the Plaintiff needs more time to process, evaluate, and work-up its case in accordance with the Second Dismissal Order. Thus, the Court will grant the Motions to Continue as follows: the discovery deadline will be extended to December 23, 2016, the dispositive motion deadline will be extended to January 20, 2017, and the trial will be rescheduled to the term commencing June 5, 2017. Moreover, the parties' expert disclosure deadlines are extended to October 21, 2016, for the Plaintiff, and November 18, 2016, for the Defendant. The pretrial conference will be rescheduled during the month of May, 2017. In light of the foregoing, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied without prejudice.

As for the Motion to Dismiss, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint for Breach of Insurance Contract and Jury Trial Demand (Doc. No. 45) (the "SAC") filed by the Plaintiff on July 13, 2016. The SAC alleges that the Plaintiff's losses were caused by a sudden sinking or collapse, as required by the Second Dismissal Order. Thus, the case is ready to proceed towards disposition on the merits and, as a result, the Motion to Dismiss must be denied.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Motions to Continue are GRANTED as set forth above, the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. The Defendant shall answer the SAC within 14 days.

DONE and ORDERED.