From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

SCP DISTRIBUTORS LLC v. Zelaya

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Nov 18, 2024
6:24-cv-1413-CEM-LHP (M.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2024)

Opinion

6:24-cv-1413-CEM-LHP

11-18-2024

SCP DISTRIBUTORS LLC and SUPERIOR POOL PRODUCTS LLC, Plaintiffs, v. MAURO ZELAYA, Defendant


FILED: November 14, 2024

ORDER

LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:

MOTION: MOTION (Doc. No. 18)

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant Mauro Zelaya on August 1, 2024, and effected service of the complaint on August 7, 2024. Doc. Nos. 1, 11. Thus, the time for Defendant to respond to the complaint has long expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1).

On November 1, 2024, Defendant appeared in this case by filing a motion seeking an extension of unspecified deadlines. Doc. No. 13. The same day, the Court denied the motion without prejudice for failure to comply with the Local Rules, including Local Rules 3.01(a) and 3.01(g), and for failure to specify which deadlines Defendant was seeking to extend. Doc. No. 14. The Court cautioned Defendant that any renewed motion must fully comply with the Local Rules and state the precise relief sought. Id.

Now before the Court is an untitled and unsigned filing by Defendant, in which Defendant requests “a 30-day extension, to wait for the response of [his] lawyers in the next presentation to the court and for D&J POOL PREP CORP to pay this debt in full.” Doc. No. 18. Upon review, this filing, construed as a motion, once again fails to comply with the Local Rules, including Local Rules 3.01(a) and 3.01(g), and the filing is unsigned. Further, the time for Defendant to respond to the complaint has long elapsed, and the issue of default against Defendant remains outstanding. See Doc. No. 17; Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1). The present motion, to the extent Defendant is asking for an extension of the deadline to respond to the complaint, fails to establish excusable neglect in support of such request. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(B).

Accordingly, the filing (Doc. No. 18), construed as a motion, is DENIED without prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Unrepresented Parties


Summaries of

SCP DISTRIBUTORS LLC v. Zelaya

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Nov 18, 2024
6:24-cv-1413-CEM-LHP (M.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2024)
Case details for

SCP DISTRIBUTORS LLC v. Zelaya

Case Details

Full title:SCP DISTRIBUTORS LLC and SUPERIOR POOL PRODUCTS LLC, Plaintiffs, v. MAURO…

Court:United States District Court, Middle District of Florida

Date published: Nov 18, 2024

Citations

6:24-cv-1413-CEM-LHP (M.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2024)