NATIONWIDE AFFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
v.
OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY
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 denied both plaintiffs' and defendant's motions for extensions of time and struck plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for summary judgment after the deadline and without leave of court. Defendant also sought an extension of time afte…
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 Standing Order cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25) and Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Its Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29). As an initial matter, Plaintiffs’ Motion, which was filed after the amended pleading was filed, still inexplicably fails to comply with this Court’s Standing Order and, therefore, it will be denied. Pursuant to the Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 13), all dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment, were due on or before December 5, 2023. (Id. at 2). Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment was not timely filed and leave of Court was neither properly sought nor granted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment will be stricken. Also before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for an Extension of Time to File Its Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 27). If a motion for extension is filed before the scheduling order deadline expires, the court may grant it for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4). However, where, as here, the motion is filed after the deadline for compliance, the party seeking an extension must satisfy the excusable neglect standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). When requesting an extension, the parties should show they have worked diligently to meet the deadline and yet still cannot meet it.
Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F. 3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998). Defendant’s Motion does not set forth good cause for modifying the scheduling order or explain why, despite proper diligence, Defendant could not have timely filed a compliant motion. The Court notes that it explicitly warned to the parties to familiarize themselves with this Court’s Local Rules and Orders at the outset of this litigation. (Doc. 6). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion will also be denied. Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Its Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29) is DENIED. 2. Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25) is STRICKEN.
3. Defendant’s Motion for an Extension of Time to File Its Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 27) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on December 8, 2023.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record