DUARTE
v.
RIVERA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted defendants' unopposed motions for extensions of time to respond to the amended complaint.
The Florida Highway Patrol and Trooper Javier Rivera sought extensions to respond to an amended complaint. The plaintiff did not oppose these requests…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Before the Court is Defendant Florida Highway Patrol's (“FHP”) Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Amended Complaint. (Doc. 42.) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow this Court to “extend the time” an act must be done “for good cause." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Good cause in this context is not a strict standard. It is meant to accommodate any myriad of circumstances that might necessitate more time. See, e.g., Gillio v. US Bank NA, No. 612CV1548ORL36TBS, 2013 WL 12387342, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 1, 2013) (“The Court routinely grants extensions when they are sought in good faith; do not prejudice a party; are not likely to create future
case management problems; the Court will still have sufficient time to decide dispositive motions; and the extension will not impact the trial date.").
Here, FHP seeks a short extension to prepare a responsive pleading. FHP cites the need to review materials and research the issues to prepare the response. The Court finds this an acceptable showing of good cause under the circumstances, given the lack of any apparent prejudice. The motion is also unopposed. Further, given the extension, the clerk's default (Doc. 40) is vacated. And the motion for default judgment (Doc. 43) is denied as moot.
Defendant Javier Rivera also seeks an extension of time to respond to the amended complaint to coordinate with other parties involved and prepare an adequate response. (Doc. 44.) Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. The Court finds good cause to allow this extension too.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Defendant Florida Highway Patrol's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Amended Complaint (Doc. 42) is GRANTED. FHP must respond to the amended complaint on or before August 29, 2025.
2. The Clerk's default (Doc. 40) is VACATED and Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 43) is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. Defendant Javier Rivera's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Amended Complaint (Doc. 44) is GRANTED.
2
Rivera must respond to the amended complaint on or before September 3, 2025.
ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 13, 2025.
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duarte v. Rivera, 2013 WL 12387342 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…be done “for good cause." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Good cause in this context is not a strict standard. It is meant to accommodate any myriad of circumstances that might necessitate more time. See, e.g., Gillio v. US Bank NA, No. 612CV1548ORL36TBS, 2013 WL 12387342, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 1, 2013) (“The Court routinely grants extensions when they are sought in good faith; do not prejudice a party; are not likely to create future ---PAGE 2--- Case 2:25-cv-00408-SPC-KCD Document 45 Filed 08/13/25 Page 2 of 3 Pag…
-
SMB Cap., LLC v. Global Aerospace, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2025)…extend CMSO deadlines where plaintiff delayed discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss, noting that "taking too long to conduct discovery. is not due diligence and thus not good cause"); Gillio v. US Bank NA, No. 6:12-cv-1548-Orl- 36TBS, 2013 WL 12387342, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 1, 2013) (denying request to extend discovery deadline because “[a]waiting a decision on the motion to dismiss is not a sufficient reason to extend any of the other deadlines in the CMSO."). See also Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc…
Authorities Cited
- Duarte v. Rivera, 2013 WL 12387342 (M.D. Fla. 2025)