Pureterra Naturals, Inc. v. Cut-Heal Animal Care Products, Inc., 8:09-cv-00797

8:09-cv-00797 | M.D. Fla. | Nov 18, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION PURETERRA NATURALS, INC., d/b/a Calm Coat; KRISTEN WATTERS; and JULIE NUGENT,

Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 8:09-cv-797-T-33MAP CUT-HEAL ANIMAL CARE PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendant. ________________________________/ ORDER This matter comes before the Court pursuant to the parties’ Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to Complete Discovery and File Dispositive Motions (Doc. # 50), which was filed on November 17, 2010. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the motion.

Discussion Plaintiffs initiated this patent infringement action

concerning animal care products by filing a one-count complaint against Cut-Heal Animal Products, Inc. on April 28, 2009 (Doc. # 1). On June 5, 2009, Cut-Heal filed a motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc. # 5). After multiple extensions of time, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss (Doc. ## 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12). On December 9, 2009, the Court entered an Order denying Cut-Heal’s motion to dismiss (Doc. # 23). The Court’s Order denying the motion to dismiss triggered Cut-Heal’s responsibility to file an answer to the complaint.

Cut-Heal failed to file a timely answer, and on January 13, 2010, Plaintiffs moved for the entry of a clerk’s default against Cut-Heal pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. # 25). Five hours later, Cut-Heal filed a motion for leave to file its answer out of time (Doc. # 27). Cut-Heal’s counsel explained that he “inadvertently failed to calendar the fourteen day deadline due to an administrative oversight that occurred during the holidays and was unaware that the deadline had passed until Plaintiffs filed their motion for entry of default.” (Doc. # 27 at 1-2). The Court entered an Order on February 1, 2010, denying Plaintiffs’ default motion and granting Cut-Heal’s request to file its answer out of time (Doc. # 28).

Thereafter, on June 15, 2010, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the case and extend the discovery deadline (Doc. # 35). On June 16, 2010, the Court entered an Order staying the case until August 2, 2010, extending the discovery deadline to August 16, 2010, and extending the dispositive motions deadline to September 17, 2010 (Doc. # 36).

On August 16, 2010, the parties requested an additional 30 days’ stay, and a further extension of the case management deadlines, representing that they were trying to resolve the case (Doc. # 40). On August 16, 2010, the Court granted the requested extension of the stay and pending deadlines (Doc. # 41).

On September 23, 2010, the Court lifted the stay of this case and issued an amended Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. # 45), setting the discovery deadline as October 18, 2010, and the dispositive motions deadline as November 17, 2010 (Doc. # 46). On September 30, 2010, the parties filed a joint motion requesting an extension of the discovery deadline (Doc. # 47), which this Court granted on October 1, 2010, extending the discovery deadline to November 17, 2010 (Doc. # 48).

On November 12, 2010, non-parties Last Chance Ranch, Inc. and Jennifer Elliott filed a motion to intervene in this lawsuit (Doc. # 49). The motion to intervene is not yet ripe for the Court’s review; nevertheless, based on the filing of the motion to intervene, the parties have filed the present motion in which they request an additional 60 days for the completion of discovery and the filing of dispositive motions (Doc. # 50).

The Court determines that, although the extension motion is unopposed, it should be denied as unsupported by good cause. This case, which has been pending for over a year and six months, has been on a pattern of delay since it was initiated. The Court has granted numerous extensions of time and declines to grant a further extension of deadlines that have already been extended on multiple occasions. Pursuant to the Court’s Order entered on October 1, 2010 (Doc. # 48), the time for discovery has expired, as has the time for filing of dispositive motions. No further extensions will be granted in this case absent extraordinary circumstances.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: The parties’ Motion for Enlargement of Time to Complete

Discovery and File Dispositive Motions (Doc. # 50) is DENIED . DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 18th day of November 2010. Copies: All Counsel of Record