1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ADELAIDE DIXON, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated 

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI

 Defendant. /

 Case No.: 1:20-cv-22594-AHS

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXPANSION OF TIME 

TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND/OR AMEND HER 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Adelaide Dixon hereby moves, with the consent of counsel for Defendant, for an 

expansion of the time allotted to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Stay, filed July 7, 

2020. In support thereof, Plaintiff states as follows: 

1. This action was originally filed in the United States District Court for the District of South 

Carolina. 

2. Subsequent to the filing of this action, three similar actions were filed in the Southern 

District of Florida, namely:

i. Dimitryuk v. University of Miami, Case No. 20-60851-CIV-SINGHAL 

ii. Weiss v. University of Miami, Case No. 20-22207-CIV-SINGHAL 

iii. Gold v. University of Miami, Case No. 20-22316-CIV-SINGHAL 

3. The parties agreed to transfer this action from the District of South Carolina to the Southern 

District of Florida, and the District of South Carolina ordered the transfer on June 23, 2020.

4. Thereafter, on July 1, 2020, Defendant filed a notice of related actions as to the four 

pending actions.

5. Likewise, on July 7, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion to dismiss or stay this action.

6. Presently, Plaintiff’s response to said Motion is due on July 21, 2020.

7. Plaintiff has never amended her original Complaint and, accordingly, is entitled to amend 

once as a matter of course in response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 15(a)(1)(B).

Case 1:20-cv-22594-AHS Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 1 of 3
2

8. Plaintiff intends to amend her Complaint accordingly, and to respond to and address other 

issues raised by Defendant’s Motion.

9. However, on July 10, 2020, this Court issued a sua sponte order compelling Plaintiff to 

show cause why this action should not be consolidated with the other similar actions, and 

scheduling a status conference regarding the same for July 29, 2020.

10. Given the possibility of consolidation, Plaintiff respectfully seeks an extension of time in 

which to respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss by amendment or otherwise.

11. Good cause exists for this request because it will promote judicial efficiency and preserve 

resources.

12. If the cases are consolidated, the various Plaintiffs will be required to confer regarding 

leadership and will likely request an opportunity to file one amended consolidated complaint.

13. If this request is granted, it would be futile for Plaintiff to file an individual amended 

complaint prior to consolidation, only to file a consolidated complaint shortly thereafter.

14. It would likewise be futile for Plaintiff to respond to the substance of Defendant’s motion 

to dismiss by the current response deadline because the motion is unlikely to be fully adjudicated 

prior to the decision on consolidation and, consolidation, if granted, might render Defendant’s 

motion moot, at least in part.

15. As a matter of judicial efficiency, Plaintiff suggests that deadlines in the individual cases 

be stayed pending a determination on consolidation. Thereafter, if consolidation is ordered, the 

case(es) may proceed on one set of pleadings and one set of motions practice and related briefings.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter an order expanding the time 

within which to respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and/or amend her complaint until 21 

days after the status conference scheduled for July 29, 2020.

Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) Certification

Undersigned counsel certifies that he has consulted with counsel for Defendant, and that 

Defendant consents to the requested extension.

[signature on following page]

Case 1:20-cv-22594-AHS Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 2 of 3
3

Dated: July 16, 2020

ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC

/s/ Justin S. Hemlepp 

Justin. S. Hemlepp, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No.: 58991

E-mail: justinh@akimlawfirm.com

 Eric M. Poulin, Esq.*

 Roy T. Willey, Esq., IV*

32 Ann Street

Charleston, SC 29403

* Pro hac vice 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-22594-AHS Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 3 of 3