Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Wenzel Fenton x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act | Florida Middle
Case Management Scheduling Order
CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 9/30/2026, Joinder of Parties due by 9/30/2026, Discovery due by 5/7/2027, Dispositive motions due by 6/4/2027, Pretrial statement due by 10/18/2027, All other motions due by 10/13/2027, Plaintiff disclosure of expert report due by 2/5/2027, Defendant disclosure of expert report due by 3/5/2027, Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/29/2027 at 01:30 PM in Zoom Video Conference before Judge John L. Badalamenti, Jury Trial set for term commencing 11/1/2027 in Tampa Courtroom 9 B before Judge John L. Badalamenti, Conduct mediation hearing by 6/10/2027. Lead counsel to coordinate dates. Signed by Judge John L. Badalamenti on 8/18/2026. (BGS)
Labor: Other | Florida Middle
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery
ENDORSED ORDER denying 46 Defendant's Amended Motion for Extension of Case Management Deadlines. The Court does not require a response from Plaintiff to resolve the motion. The motion essentially states that Defendant forewent engaging in litigation, including retention of experts and any discovery, given Plaintiff's pro se status and the pendency of a motion to dismiss. Doc. No. 46. This does not excusable neglect nor good cause make, particularly where Defendant never requested, and the Court never granted, a stay of discovery in this case. See Doc. No. 23, at 3 ("Failure to complete discovery within the time established by this Order does not constitute good cause for an extension of the deadline."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Nolen v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-330-Orl-40EJK, 2020 WL 9171962, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 27, 2020) ("Rule 16(b)(4)'s 'good cause' standard is a rigorous one, focusing not on the good faith of or the potential prejudice to any party, but rather on the parties' diligence in complying with court-imposed deadlines. Indeed, litigants cannot be permitted to treat the scheduling order as a frivolous piece of paper idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded without peril." (citations and quotation marks omitted)); cf. Middle District Discovery § (I)(E)(4) ("Normally, the pendency of a motion to dismiss... will not justify a unilateral motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the dispositive motion"). Signed by Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price on 8/18/2026. (MKH)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.