# Cline v. Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD.

> District Court, S.D. Florida · June 2, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10119264

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Florida
- **Decided:** June 2, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10119264

## Opinion text

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida

Leah Cline, Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) Civil Action No. 19-24950-Civ-Scola
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., and )
Dominick Sergi, Defendants. )

Order Denying Motion to Strike
The Plaintiff Leah Cline moves to strike Defendant Dominick Sergi’s
motion for summary judgment as untimely. (ECF No. 64.) Defendant Sergi
opposes the motion, conceding that the motion was filed one day past the
deadline and arguing that the late filing was inadvertent and caused by a
clerical error. (ECF No. 65.) Upon careful consideration of the motion, the
record, and relevant legal authorities, the Court denies the Plaintiff’s motion.
(ECF No. 64.)
This matter arises out of injuries suffered by the Plaintiff on a cruise ship
during a dance party organized by Defendant Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
(“RCCL”) during which Defendant Sergi caused the Plaintiff to fall and suffer
injuries. (Fourth Am. Compl., ECF No. 35 ¶¶ 11, 13, 14.) The Court’s operative
scheduling order indicates that the deadline to file dispositive motions is May
15, 2021. (ECF No. 44.) Sergi filed his motion for summary judgment on May
17, 2021, two days past the deadline. (ECF No. 62.) The Plaintiff moves to
strike the motion for summary judgment as untimely. (ECF No. 64.) Defendant
Sergi opposes the motion and explains, through defense counsel’s sworn
declaration, that defense counsel’s assistant inadvertently calendared the
motion to be due on Monday, May 17 because the scheduled deadline of May
15 fell on a Saturday. (ECF No. 65). The Court will construe the response as
Sergi’s motion for leave to allow the untimely filing.
When a deadline appears in a scheduling order and a motion is filed after
the deadline, “Rule 16 is the proper guide for determining whether a party’s
delay may be excused.” Destra v. Demings, 725 F. App’x 855, 859 (11th Cir.
2018). A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause.
Id.; see also Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir.
1998). This good cause standard precludes modification unless the schedule
cannot “be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes.
The Plaintiffs reliance on Destra is misplaced. There, the Eleventh
Circuit recognized that Rule 16 required a good cause showing that the
deadline could not be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the
extension. Destra, 725 F. App’x at 859. Ultimately, the appellate court reversed
the district court’s order striking the untimely motion because the court could
not discern whether the defendants or counsel had exercised diligence
necessary to establish good cause. Id. By contrast, defense counsel in the
present case was diligent in the filing of the motion for summary judgment on
the date she believed it was due. Brown v. Sims Crane & Equip. Co., No. 2:07-
CV-5-FTM-29SPC, 2007 WL 9718642, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2007)
(Chappell, J.) (allowing modification of scheduling order because the plaintiff
had shown the necessary good cause under Rule 16 because the delay was the
result of a clerical error not a result of lack of due diligence). Additionally, it is
worth noting the Defendants have shown the Plaintiff flexibility and eagerness
to resolve the case on its merits by consenting to several amended complaints
that the Plaintiff sought to file past the deadline. Accordingly, although the
Court views any noncompliance with its orders with serious disfavor, the
untimeliness of Sergi’s filing does not require the Court to strike the motion.
Palacio v. Empire Acad., Inc., No. CV 15-21163-CIV, 2016 WL 4004647, at *4
(S.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2016) (Scola, J.) (denying motion to strike motion for
summary judgment that was filed one day after the deadline to file dispositive
motions).
For these reasons, the Plaintiff's motion to strike Sergi’s motion for
summary judgment is denied. (ECF No. 64.)
Done and ordered, in Miami, Florida, on June 1, 2021.
foe N. fd Jr.
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10119264. Public record. Not legal advice.