Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Allen v. Mk Centennial Maritime B.V.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

May 16, 2018

PRISCILLA ALLEN, Plaintiff,
v.
MK CENTENNIAL MARITIME B.V., MMS CO., LTD., and JOHN DOE, Defendants.

          ORDER

          VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court pursuant to the parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Deadlines and Motion for Pretrial Conference (Doc. # 31), which was filed on May 15, 2018. As explained below, the Court requests that the Magistrate Judge schedule a hearing on the Motion to address the concerns enumerated below.

         Discussion

         On September 7, 2014, a boating accident occurred in the navigable waterways of Hillsborough County, Florida, specifically “in the vicinity of Markers 10 and 11 on the Tampa Bay Cut ‘A' Channel.” (Doc. # 2 at ¶ 15). The Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' vessel was traveling “under such power and at such speed as to cause a dangerous wake to roll from [Defendants'] vessel striking Plaintiff's vessel and the Plaintiff[s].” (Id.). Plaintiffs filed nine separate negligence cases in state court. After being served with the Amended Complaint on September 5, 2017, Defendants removed each of the cases on October 5, 2017, on the basis of admiralty jurisdiction. (Doc. # 1). The Court designated the cases as Track Two cases. (Doc. # 5).

         Under Local Rule 1.04(d), Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Pendency of Other Actions, alerting this Court that multiple related cases were pending. (Doc. # 4). In an effort to streamline the proceedings, the undersigned accepted transfer of all related cases, directed the Clerk to assign the same Magistrate Judge to each related case, and consolidated the cases for the purposes of discovery. (Doc. ## 11, 29).[1]

         In an Order dated October 16, 2017, the Court directed the parties to complete and file a Case Management Report. (Doc. # 7). That Order referenced the Court's website, which in turn, describes this Court's “Active Case Management” procedures. The website explains:

Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that became effective on December 1, 2015, respond to finding that early intervention by judges helps to narrow issues and reduce discovery. Litigation results are more satisfactory when a judge actively manages a case from the beginning and stays involved. The amendments do not break new ground; they emphasize the importance of early, hands-on, and continuing case management.

         The parties filed the Case Management Report on October 26, 2017. (Doc. # 16). Among other suggested deadlines, the parties requested that Plaintiffs' expert reports be due on August 3, 2018, and Defendants' expert reports be due on September 7, 2018. (Id.). Additionally, the parties requested an October 5, 2018, discovery deadline, a November 2, 2018, dispositive motions deadline, and an April 2019, jury trial.

(Id.).

         On November 7, 2017, after carefully studying the Case Management Report, the Court issued its Case Management and Scheduling Order. (Doc. # 17). The Court did not adopt the parties' suggested deadlines. Instead, the Court set the following deadlines, among others:

Plaintiffs' expert report: April 16, 2018
Defendants' expert report: May 15, 2018
Discovery deadline: June 15, 2018
Dispositive motions: July 16, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.