ORDER

PAUL G. BYRON, District Judge.

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 44), filed June 7, 2016, and Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s Motion to Extend Discovery and Dispositive Motions Deadlines (Doc. 51), filed September 26, 2016. In their motions, the parties ask the Court to re-open the deadline for amending pleadings and to extend the deadlines for conducting discovery and filing dispositive motions.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 governs a district court's scheduling and management of cases. That rule provides that "[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Rule 16(b)(4)'s "good cause" standard is a rigorous one, focusing not on the good faith of or the potential prejudice to any party, but rather on the parties' diligence in complying with court-imposed deadlines. Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Indeed, "litigants cannot be permitted to treat a scheduling order as a frivolous piece of paper idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded without peril." O'Connell v. Hyatt Hotels of P.R., 357 F.3d 152, 155 (1st Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, if a party cannot demonstrate diligence in complying with the court's scheduling order, the inquiry ends. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

In this case, no party indicates what action, if any, has been taken to diligently comply with the deadlines at issue. To the contrary, the parties concede that they have chosen not to prosecute or defend against this lawsuit while they waited for the Court to rule on Defendants' motions to dismiss. However, the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order explicitly cautioned the parties about the consequences of making such a choice:

(Doc. 37, p. 2). No party sought to stay or abate any deadline at any time while Defendants' motions to dismiss remained pending. Moreover, the parties agreed to the current deadlines knowing that the Court had not yet resolved the motions. (Doc. 36). The Court presumes that the parties know their respective cases best and agreed to dates which would allow them sufficient time to engage in discovery and file dispositive motions. Any party's choice not to conduct discovery within the agreed time period is a choice made at that party's peril. In short, the parties have failed to demonstrate the diligence required by Rule 16(b)(4) to modify the deadlines listed in the Case Management and Scheduling Order.

Notwithstanding the fact that the parties have sat on their cases for the better part of a year without seeking relief from the Court's deadlines, the Court will grant the parties' request to extend the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines. The proposed extensions do not interfere with either the final pretrial conference or the trial date, and they afford enough time for the Court to resolve any dispositive motions. The Court therefore finds that an extension of the deadlines will serve judicial economy and the timely resolution of this case. However, the parties are cautioned that no further extensions of these deadlines and no continuances of either the final pretrial conference or the trial term will be granted due to a party's failure to diligently prosecute or defend their case.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

DONE AND ORDERED.