Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Heights of Audacity

Heights of Audacity

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5,816 |Likes:
Published by southfllawyers

More info:

Published by: southfllawyers on Aug 24, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/21/2013

pdf

text

original

 
08-10084.032
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THESOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case Number: 08- 10084-CIV-BROWNPETER HALMOS, INTERNATIONALYACHTING CHARTERS, INC., and HIGHPLAINS CAPITAL,Plaintiffs,
VS.
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTHAMERICA and STRICKLAND MARINEINSURANCE, INC., (f/k/a STRICKLANDMARINE AGENCY, INC.),Defendants.
ORDER
RE:
MOTION FOR
ENLARGEMENT OF
TIMEThis
matter
is before this Court on Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Enlargement of Time
...
(D.E.999).The Court has considered the motion, the response (which was not needed) and allpertinent materials in the file. The Court notes that apparently plaintiffs feel they have exhaustedtheir "quota" for "extensions" of time and are now seeking an "enlargement" of time.Plaintiffs'gall continues to rise to new heights.Initially, how or why this motion is an emergency is a complete mystery. If the motion isgranted, where's the emergency? If the motion is denied, the deadline has passed. There is noemergency. Secondly, the Court refers to D.E. 901. Exactly what problem do plaintiffs have withthe phrase "no extensions will be considered"?
Or,
do plaintiffs think that
an
enlargement differs
Case 4:08-cv-10084-STB Document 1004 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2010 Page 1 of 3
 
from an extension? If so, they are sadly mistaken.Finally we address the merits ofthe motion
...
or, more accurately, for the most part, the lackthereof. Counsel brazenly suggests that he was out of the office "nearly the entire last week and ahalf' for various reasons. (Mot.
T[
2).
It bears noting that conspicuously absent from this claim isany statement that this absence was
-
itself
-
an emergency or unexpected, and it simply focuses, asplaintiffs have been fond of doing on too numerous occasions to address individually, on theimmediate
and
totally ignores the overall picture.The height of audaciousness is reached in paragraphs
4-7.
What those paragraphs simply say
-
without saying it
-
is that as a result of our (plaintiffs) not doing what
we
should have done in thefirst place, we need more time
...
and by that logic if they continue this practice they will need stillmore time
...
and so on. They dare argue that they need the deposition testimony of Mr. Halmos("arguably the most critical witness in this matter") (Mot.
T[
6)
-
to file their motion for summaryjudgment (to incorporate Mr. Halmos' testimony where necessary in their dispositive motion).
Id.
He is the plaintiff! He is their witness! Apparently with all the years of experience and expertisein the plaintiffs' legal camp, no one has figured out that affidavits can be used in support of summaryjudgment!
See
Fed.R.Civ.P.
56
(a). In short, and with one exception, the motion is absurd on allfronts.That exception has to do with defendant's counterclaim and affirmative defenses. The Courtwill give plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt as to these items. It is this benefit of the doubt
-
and onlythis
-
that prevents the Court from imposing severe sanctions for this latest waste of the Court's time(for the most part).Therefore, and the Court being otherwise hlly advised in the premises, it is hereby
Case 4:08-cv-10084-STB Document 1004 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2010 Page 2 of 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->