PIMENTEL
v.
STRENGTH20, LLC
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 the plaintiffs' motion to extend the expiration of the statutory lis pendens.
Plaintiffs, security guards suing for unpaid wages under the FLSA, sought to extend a statutory lis pendens filed against defendants' property. The li…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Good Cause For Extension cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend the Time for Expiration of Statutory Lis Pendens Against Defendants' Related State Court Causes of Action Until Such Time as This Lawsuit is Adjudicated. (Doc. 126.) [fn 1] No response has been filed, so the Court treats the motion as unopposed. See Local Rule 3.01(c). For the below reasons, the Court grants the motion.
Plaintiffs are security guards. In the wake of Hurricane Ian, Defendants employed Plaintiffs to protect Florida Structural Group's (“FSG") job sites around Sanibel Island and Fort Myers Beach. (Doc. 46.) Plaintiffs sue Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging they did not pay minimum wage or overtime. There is also a dispute pending in state court where Defendants Strength20 and Global Strategies allege FSG did not pay them for security services.
Under Florida Statute § 48.23(1)(a), this federal lawsuit acts as a lien against Defendants' real or personal property. In accordance with § 48.23(1)(a), Plaintiffs recorded a statutory Lis Pendens providing notice they maintain an interest and lien against the property represented by the claims which Defendants maintain against each other in the state court action. (Docs. 126- 1, 126-2.) The Lis Pendens will automatically lapse after this lawsuit has remained pending for more than one year, unless the Court extends the expiration period “upon reasonable notice and for good cause." Fla. Stat. § 48.23(2). Because this case's one-year anniversary is approaching, Plaintiffs move to extend the expiration period of the Lis Pendens until the case concludes. (Doc. 126.)
Because Plaintiffs' potential interest in the recovery of money for the hours worked is the same as when they originally filed the Lis Pendens, and seeing no objection, the Court finds good cause to grant an extension. See Taylor v. Steckel, 944 So. 2d 494, 487 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006). Thus, the Lis Pendens is extended until the conclusion of this case. See Fla. Stat. § 48.23(2) (“The court may impose such terms for the extension of time as justice requires.")
Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend the Time for Expiration of Statutory Lis Pendens Against Defendants' Related State Court Causes of Action Until Such Time as This Lawsuit is Adjudicated (Doc. 126) is GRANTED. The expiration period of the Lis Pendens is extended until this case concludes.
ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on July 2, 2024.
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
Copies: All Parties of Record
[fn 1]: Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations.