Order | Filed: July 08, 2026
| Entered: July 08, 2026
The Gray Insurance Company v. Global Impact Products, LLC et al
Contract: Other | Florida Middle
Order
ENDORSED ORDER: On June 18, 2026, Plaintiff filed its "Notice of Service of Complaint" (Doc. # 9), indicating that Defendants Global Impact Products, LLC ("Global Impact"), National Facade Systems USA, LLC ("NFS"), and Harm Van Der Mark ("Mr. Van Der Mark") received a copy of the summons and complaint, that an appointed agent of these defendants accepted service on their behalf, and that "the date of service for Global Impact, NFS, and Mr. Van Der Mark is June 3, 2026." (Id. at 1-2; Doc. # [9-2] at 2). Accordingly, Defendants Global Impact, NFS, and Mr. Van Der Mark's answers to the complaint were due within 21 days of service (i.e., by June 24, 2026). No answer was filed by that deadline, and Plaintiff did not promptly move for entry of Clerk's default. Accordingly, on June 29, 2026, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause and explain why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. # 11). Thereafter, on July 6, 2026, Defendants Global Impact, NFS, and Mr. Van Der Mark filed their answer to the complaint. (Doc. # 12). On July 7, 2026, Plaintiff filed its response to the Court's show cause order. (Doc. # 13). The response indicates that, "[a]s a matter of professional courtesy," Plaintiff's counsel "sent an email to counsel for [Defendants] on June 29, 2026, giving them until July 6, 2026 to file their responsive pleadings." (Id. at 2). Indeed, the exhibits attached to Plaintiff's response indicate that the parties privately agreed to allow Defendants Global Impact, NFS, and Mr. Van Der Mark to file their answer late. (Doc. # [13-3] at 2). This is not proper. While the Court agrees that courtesy and professionalism should rule the day, a plaintiff does not have the authority to grant an extension of time for a responsive pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Here, the proper procedure would have been for Defendants Global Impact, NFS, and Mr. Van Der Mark to file an unopposed motion for an extension of time or for leave to file the answer late, certifying that Plaintiff does not object. The Court would be well within its rights to sua sponte strike the late-filed answer since permission to file out-of-time was not sought. Nevertheless, the Court will move forward with this litigation. The Court expects compliance with deadlines and Court rules and regulations. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 7/8/2026. (ATI)