TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge.
This case is before the Court on pending motions.
First, plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (Doc. 72), to which defendants filed a response in opposition (Doc. 74) and plaintiffs filed a reply (Doc. 94) and additional supporting exhibits (Docs. 107 & S-108), is
Second, defendants' motion for partial summary judgment or, in the alternative, to disqualify class representative Daniel Finerman, and motion to dismiss unjust enrichment claim of Donna Devino (Doc. 73), to which plaintiffs responded in opposition (Doc. 96) and defendants filed a reply (Doc. 109) is
In their motion for partial summary judgment, defendants argue that Finerman could have avoided any damages by cancelling his cruise. However, even if the avoidable consequences doctrine applies to Finerman's FDUTPA and unjust enrichment claims (which the Court need not decide for purposes of deciding this motion), Finerman has presented evidence that his other vacation options (including not taking one at all) would not have served to mitigate his damages, thus creating at least a genuine issue of disputed fact on this point. The Court also rejects the argument that Finerman's alleged knowledge of any overcharge vitiates his claims, especially where he has presented evidence that his other options left him in a worse position. Defendants also contend that neither Finerman nor Donna Devino can prevail on a claim for unjust enrichment because they do not have evidence to show that either defendant kept any portion of the disputed fee. But discovery is not yet over and, in any event, if plaintiffs paid an amount the defendants should have paid instead, then the defendants might have been unjustly enriched even if they did not themselves retain the sums plaintiffs paid.
Two final points. First, the Court disapproves of plaintiffs' practice of using footnotes for citations to legal authorities that should be in the text. The small font is too hard to read and it results in evading the Court's page limitations. See, for example, Doc. 96. Future filings that follow this practice will be stricken. Last, the Court is concerned about the sniping going on in the parties' papers. It is not helpful to the Court and reflects poorly on counsel.
Accordingly, it is hereby
1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (Doc. 72) is
2. Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, to Disqualify Daniel Finerman as Class Representative, and Motion to Dismiss Unjust Enrichment Claim of Plaintiff Donna Devino (Doc. 73) is
3. Plaintiffs' Motion to Defer Consideration of Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, etc. (Doc. 97) is
4. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions (Doc. 112) is
5. Although MORI has not yet had an opportunity to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Document Discovery (Doc. 113), the Court will
6. In light of the new deadlines set forth above, and to put this case on a realistic schedule, the Court sets the remaining case deadlines and settings as follows:
The Court will set the final pretrial and trial settings as necessary once it rules on the pending motions. In all other respects the parties shall continue to be governed by the May 5, 2016 Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 69). Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Unexpired Deadlines (Doc. 102) is