United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
ALEJANDRO AGUIRRE-MOLINA, for himself and on behalf of those similarly situated Plaintiff,
v.
TRUSCAPES SW FLA INC., TRUSCAPES INDUSTRIES, INC. and LLOMELL LORCA, Defendants.
ORDER
CAROL
MIRANDO United States Magistrate Judge
This
matter comes before the Court upon review of the Joint Motion
to Extend Deadlines (Doc. 55) filed on January 9, 2017. The
parties seek to extend the discovery deadline and all other
remaining Court-ordered deadlines accordingly because the
parties desire to reduce unnecessary expenses by conducting
depositions after the parties' mediation scheduled on
January 24, 2017. Doc. 55 at 2. Furthermore, the parties
state that they need additional time to complete discovery
because this matter was conditionally certified on August 23,
2016. Id.
On
October 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated against Defendants
Truscapes SW Fla Inc., Truscapes Industries, Inc., and
Llomell Lorca under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”). Doc. 1. On April 21, 2016, the Court
entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order
(“CMSO”) setting the discovery deadline to
January 10, 2017, the mediation deadline to January 16, 2017,
the deadline for dispositive motions to February 10, 2017,
and a trial term of June 5, 2017. Doc. 47 at 1-2. On August
23, 2016, United States District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell
accepted and adopted the Report and Recommendation and
granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of this action as a collective
action (Doc. 35). Doc. 52.
District
courts have broad discretion when managing their cases in
order to ensure that the cases move to a timely and orderly
conclusion. Chrysler Int'l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280
F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002). Rule 16 requires a showing
of good cause for modification of a court's scheduling
order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). “This good cause standard
precludes modification unless the schedule cannot be met
despite the diligence of the party seeking the
extension.” Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133
F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations and
citations omitted).
Here,
the Court finds good cause to grant the requested extension
because this is the first extension of the CMSO deadlines
requested by the parties, and the motion is unopposed. The
Court, however, reminds the parties that this matter has been
pending since October 2, 2015. Doc. 1. Given the length of
time that this case has been pending, the Court expects the
parties to exercise their diligence in meeting the extended
deadlines. The parties' continued diligence and
coordination will help avoid the parties' future need to
file additional motions to extend the deadlines.
ACCORDINGLY,
it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The
Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines (Doc. 55) is GRANTED.
2. An
amended case management and scheduling order will be ...