Skinner v. Legal Advocacy Ctr. of Cent. Florida, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 6:11-cv-1760-ORL-37KRS |
| Parties | MICHELLE SKINNER, Plaintiff, v. LEGAL ADVOCACY CENTER OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC. and COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES OF MID-FLORIDA, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
This cause is before the Court on the following:
On November 11, 2011, Michelle Skinner ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint in this Court against Legal Advocacy Center of Central Florida, Inc. ("Legal Advocacy Center") and Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida, Inc. ("Community Legal Services") (together, "Defendants") for violations of the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.("FMLA") (Doc. No. 1.) On April 5, 2012, the Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for her failure to file a joint Case Management Report and otherwise prosecute the action. (Doc. No. 19.) On April 20, 2012, Earnest A. DeLoach, Jr. filed a "limited appearance" of record "for the purpose of early mediation" on behalf of Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 20, p. 1.) Mr. DeLoach also filed "Plaintiff's Response to Court's Order to Show Cause," in which he requested the Court allow Plaintiff ten (10) days to file her Case Management Report. (Doc. No. 21, p. 2.) The Court granted Plaintiff's request and ordered her to file a Case Management Report on or before May 11, 2012. (Doc. No. 22.)
On May 2, 2012, Defendant Community Legal Services filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's counsel's Limited Notice of Appearance because Local Rule 2.03(d) provides that a party who previously elected to appear "in proper person" is not permitted to "obtain special or intermittent appearances of counsel except upon such conditions as the Court may specify." (See Doc. No. 24.) Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion to Strike. On May 22, 2012, Magistrate Judge Spaulding granted the Motion, finding that Mr. DeLoach's Notice of Limited Appearance was improper. (Doc. No. 24.) Judge Spaulding directed the Clerk to strike the Notice, and to remove Mr. DeLoach from the docket "as he is not counsel of record." (Id. at p. 2.)
Judge Spaulding ordered Plaintiff to "provide the Court in writing with her physical mailing address, telephone number and email address, for the purposes of contacting her regarding matters in this case" on or before May 31, 2012. (Id.) Additionally, Judge Spaulding informed Plaintiff that she would be "responsible for representing herself in this case, including abiding by all rules and orders of the Court unless and until counsel entersa general appearance on her behalf," and reminded her that "she was required to confer with counsel for Defendants and file a Case Management Report on or before May 11, 2012." (Id. (emphasis added).)
On May 23, 2012, upon review of the record, the undersigned dismissed the action for Plaintiff's failure to file a Case Management Report, and directed the Clerk to close this case file. (Doc. No. 25.) On June 14, 2012, Mr. DeLoach filed the Verified Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal (Doc. No. 26) ("Motion to Vacate"). Defendants filed separate responses in opposition. (See Doc. Nos. 27, 29.)
In the Motion to Vacate, Plaintiff states that she first consulted with Mr. DeLoach on February 8, 2012, "regarding possible engagement to represent her in the pending matter." (Doc. No. 26, ¶ 2.) On February 22, 2012, Mr. DeLoach contacted Defendants' counsel regarding early mediation. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff "engaged" Mr. DeLoach as counsel "on April 14, 2012," and he electronically filed the Notice of Limited Appearance (previously at Doc. No. 20) on April 20, 2012. On April 19, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel "learned that counsel for [Defendant Legal Advocacy Services] . . . would be unavailable due to maternity leave . . . and began to attempt to determine" who would serve as substitute counsel. (Id. at ¶ 6.) According to Defendant Legal Advocacy Services, on April 26, 2012, he contacted them to determine "who was handling the matter," in light of lead counsel's maternity leave. (Doc. No. 29, ¶ 4.) "After that call, [however,]. . . Attorney DeLoach never attempted to schedule a meeting to discuss the Case Management Report." (Id.)
On May 10, 2012, the day before the Case Management Report was due,1 another attorney from Plaintiff's counsel's office sent an e-mail attaching the proposed Case Management Report to Defendant Legal Services at "4:50 p.m." (Id. at ¶ 5.) "There was no indication of any urgency . . . and no mention the [R]eport was due the next day." (Id.; see also Doc. No. 29-1 (Ex. A).) Defendant Community Legal Services received a similar e-mail at "4:36 p.m." that day, but "the e-mail contained no attachment, and no proposed Case Management Report was otherwise provided." (Doc. No. 27, p. 8.) According to Defendant Community Legal Services, neither Plaintiff nor her counsel made any "attempt to schedule the requisite meeting of counsel to prepare the Case Management Report prior to this e-mail." (Id.)
Plaintiff's counsel maintains that in the May 10, 2012 e-mail, he "requested that defense counsel respond with any objections" to the proposed Case Management Report. (Doc. No. 26, ¶ 8.) "Having not received any response, . . . on May 21, 2012, [Plaintiff's counsel] contacted [Defendants'] counsel to offer a final opportunity to comment on the draft," but again received no response. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Contrary to this assertion, Defendant Community Legal Services maintains that it provided comments regarding the Case Management Report "on May 22, 2012" at 7:26 a.m. (Doc. No. 27, p. 8.)
Plaintiff represents to the Court that on "May 22 and 23, 2012" (when Judge Spaulding entered the Order striking Mr. DeLoach's Notice of Limited Appearance (Doc. No. 24), and the undersigned entered the Order of Dismissal (Doc. No. 25)), her counselwas unavailable because he "conducted three depositions outside of [his] office." (Id. at ¶ 12.) The next day, on May 24, 2012, he "argued a hearing in Orange County, Florida Circuit Court and then departed with his family to Palm Beach, Florida for the Memorial Day Holiday." (Id. at ¶ 13.) Plaintiff contends that her counsel "did not learn of the Order striking [his] Limited Notice of Appearance" until May 29, 2012- after the Memorial Day holiday, when he returned to the office." (Id. at ¶ 14.) Meanwhile, Plaintiff was also out of town, and did not retrieve the Order of Dismissal from her post office box until June 1, 2012. (Id. at ¶ 15.)
Based on the foregoing facts, Plaintiff maintains that this Court should exercise its discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 60(b)(1), and vacate its Order dismissing this case. In short, she contends that at the time of the dismissal, she was in the process of both preparing her Case Management Report and attempting to schedule an early mediation of the matter. "But for delays associated with the designation of temporary replacement counsel for [Defendant Legal Advocacy Services] and awaiting contributions from defense counsel regarding the Case Management Report-circumstance[s] amounting to excusable mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect- the Report would have been filed." (Doc. No. 26, ¶ 23.) Finally, Plaintiff adds that her counsel's "unavailability during the week the Court rendered its Orders striking his Limited Notice of Appearance and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint certainly contributed to [her] failure to properly respond to the Court." (Id. at ¶ 25.)
Rule 60(b)(1) provides in relevant part: "On motion and just terms, the court mayrelieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. . . . " "Rule 60(b) motions are directed to the sound discretion of the district court." Cheney v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 71 F.3d 848, 849 n.2 (11th Cir. 1996). U.S. v. Real Prop. and Residence Located at Route 1, Box 111, Firetower Rd., 920 F.2d 788, 792 (11th Cir. 1991) (citing Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 401 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981); Solaroll Shade and Shutter Corp. v. Bio-Energy Sys., Inc., 803 F.2d 1130, 1132 (11th Cir. 1986)).
In Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 382-83, 398-99 (1993), the Supreme Court of the United States set forth a four-factor test courts must employ to determine whether a party's neglect of a deadline is excusable. These factors include: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. See id. (quotation and alteration omitted).
Recently, the Eleventh Circuit explained:
To continue reading
Request your trial