ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

FEDERICO A. MORENO, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs Motion for Relief from Order Pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(6) and Request for Oral Argument (D.E. 39), filed on July 13, 2018.

THE COURT has considered the motion, the response, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is

ADJUDGED that the motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs failed to raise their Lanham Act claim in any of their previous complaints. The Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (D.E. 33) because adding a new federal claim-more than five months after this case was originally filed in state court and four months after it was removed to this Court-would unduly prejudice Defendants. The Court granted Plaintiffs' separate Motion to Continue Deadlines in the Scheduling Order (D.E. 35) because Plaintiffs alleged that the deposition of Defendant Norwood—a celebrity—had been difficult to schedule before the August 10, 2018 discovery cutoff date. The Amended Scheduling Order (D.E. 38) alloted the parties a thirty-day extension to complete discovery—and primarily to depose Defendant Norwood. Plaintiffs have not shown "that the circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief' under Rule 60(b)(6). Johnson v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., 392 F. App'x 838, 841 (11th Cir. 2010). Indeed, this Order does not prejudice Plaintiffs from filing a new complaint, paying the filing fee, and serving Defendants if they wish to prosecute their Lanham Act claim. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED.