Case 4:08-cv-10084-STB Document 1004 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2010 Page 1 of 3

08-10084.032
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case Number: 08- 10084-CIV-BROWN

PETER HALMOS, INTERNATIONAL

YACHTING CHARTERS, INC., and HIGH
PLAINS CAPITAL,

Plaintiffs,

VS.

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH

AMERICA and STRICKLAND MARINE
INSURANCE, INC., (f/k/a STRICKLAND
MARINE AGENCY, INC.),

Defendants.

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

This 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 all

pertinent materials in the file. The Court notes that apparently plaintiffs feel they have exhausted

their "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 is

granted, where's the emergency? If the motion is denied, the deadline has passed. There is no

emergency. Secondly, the Court refers to D.E. 901. Exactly what problem do plaintiffs have with

the 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 2 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 lack

thereof. Counsel brazenly suggests that he was out of the office "nearly the entire last week and a

half' for various reasons. (Mot. T[ 2). It bears noting that conspicuously absent from this claim is

any statement that this absence was - itself - an emergency or unexpected, and it simply focuses, as

plaintiffs have been fond of doing on too numerous occasions to address individually, on the

immediate 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 the
first place, we need more time ... and by that logic if they continue this practice they will need still

more 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 summary

judgment (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 expertise

in the plaintiffs' legal camp, no one has figured out that affidavits can be used in support of summary

judgment! See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (a). In short, and with one exception, the motion is absurd on all

fronts.

That exception has to do with defendant's counterclaim and affirmative defenses. The Court

-
will give plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt as to these items. It is this benefit of the doubt and only

this - 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 3 of 3

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The motion for ENLARGEMENT of time is hereby GRANTED in part, and DENIED,

in part.

2. Plaintiffs may have through and including Friday, September 10, 201 0 to file any

dispositive motions addressed ONLY to defendant's counterclaim and/or affirmative defenses. No

extensions or enlargements will be considered.

3. The motion for ENLARGEMENT is hereby DENIED in all other respects. I

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 24th day of August, 2010. 1

S/ Stephen T. Brown
STEPHEN T. BROWN
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: Counsel of record