UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20-cv-04698

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and

RAYME EDLER,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

DEFENDANT EDLER'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12 & 81 AND

SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

COMES NOW, Defendant Rayme Edler, M.D. (Dr. Edler), by and through

her undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(A), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and Local Rule 6.1, files this Motion for Extension of Time to File a

Response to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 1-3) pursuant to Rules 12 and 81,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(E) and 7.2(B), Dr.

Edler's Supporting Memorandum of Law is included herein.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 6 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 8
BACKGROUND FACTS

1. Plaintiff, Mathew Selover, filed a five (5) count Complaint in the

Circuit Court in and for Escambia County, Florida, on January 17, 2020.

2. Plaintiff served Defendant Edler on February 11, 2020.

3. By agreement of Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant Edler's prior counsel

(since substituted by the undersigned), the parties agreed to an extension of time to

file an answer or responsive motion until March 23, 2020.

4. On February 27, 2020, Defendant Edler, jointly with Defendant

Escambia County Board of County Commissioners ("ECBCC"), through prior

counsel, filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's

Complaint in the state court seeking the agreed upon relief. (Doc. 1-11.)

5. The case was removed to Federal Court by Dr. Edler on March 11,

2020. (Doc. 2.)

6. When the case was removed to the Federal Court on March 11, 2020,

the Motion for Enlargement of Time was also removed to the Federal Court. (Doc.

1-11.)

7. At the time of removal, the Motion for Extension of Time was still

pending and the parties did not intend for removal, or Fed. R. Civ. P. 81, to modify

the date for an answer or responsive motion to be filed.

- 2 -

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 6 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 8
8. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(B), for a motion that was pending in state

court at the time, the deadline for such motions and memoranda to be filed is

fourteen (14) days after removal, making Dr. Edler's supporting memorandum in

Federal Court due on March 25, 2020.

GROUNDS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

9. Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, the undersigned's law practice

has been forced to radically alter the way it conducts its business and operations to

coincide with the various shelter-in-place orders, social distancing mandates, and

self-isolation/quarantine directives instituted by national, local, and state

governments.

10. This law firm, which represents Dr. Edler through undersigned

counsel, is a small law firm with only six (6) attorneys (two of them very junior)

and its main office in the Orlando, Florida, area. It has been struggling with

transitioning attorneys and staff to work from home, which required changes to its

network infrastructure, purchase and standing up of new equipment in employees'

homes, ordering extra equipment and supplies to support them, and other actions in

order to allow remote access to the firm's secure servers and encrypted data storage

drives.

11. These required changes have, at least temporarily, slowed the firm's

- 3 -

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 6 Filed 03/23/20 Page 3 of 8
workflow necessitating additional time to prepare such a crucial response as the one

at issue in this Motion.

12. To further complicate matters, Defendant Dr. Edler is an emergency

medicine specialist who is the Medical Director of Escambia County, the Medical

Director for the Escambia County Jail, and the Medical Director for Escambia

County Emergency Medical Services.

13. In addition to her county duties, Dr. Edler works in the Emergency

Department of Baptist Hospital, Pensacola, working a number of extra shifts each

month. Recently she has been overwhelmed with additional work for both the

county and her hospital.

14. She has been largely involuntarily unavailable to communicate with her

undersigned attorney because of the demands being placed on her time.

15. The information needed to provide knowledgeable responses to the

Complaint requires a high level of client communication and coordination, which

has been impossible to achieve due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

16. In order to provide complete responses to the Complaint, based on the

facts, and well-researched legal analysis of those facts, Defendant Edler requests the

Court permit her an additional thirty (30) days to respond to the Complaint, which

would make such filing due on or before April 24, 2020.

- 4 -

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 6 Filed 03/23/20 Page 4 of 8
MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Defendant Edler requests a thirty (30) day extension of time to file a response

to the Complaint. Defendant Edler makes this request for an extension of time in

good faith and, pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(A), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

undersigned counsel certifies it is not made for any improper purpose including any

improper delay.

Rule 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states in relevant part:

(b) EXTENDING TIME.

(1) In General. When an act may or must

be done within a specified time, the court

may, for good cause, extend the time:

(A) with or without motion or notice

if the court acts, or if a request is

made, before the original time or its

extension expires; or

(B) on motion made after the time has

expired if the party failed to act

because of excusable neglect.

The Court has broad discretion in granting such motions for continuance or

extension of time. Glover v. City of Pensacola, 372 Fed. Appx. 952, 955-56 (N.D.

Fla. Apr. 14, 2010); Dugas v. 3M Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83548, *5 (M.D.

Fla. June 26, 2015) (harm to a party should be avoided when there is no

- 5 -

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 6 Filed 03/23/20 Page 5 of 8
commensurate gain to anyone else or society). The Court's ability to manage its

docket and extend deadlines is broad and not unique to the Eleventh Circuit. In 

Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 1995), the Fifth Circuit

Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's granting an enlargement of time

stating:

Appellant's final argument warrants little

discussion. Appellant asserts that the district

court abused its discretion by 1) accepting

Appellee's motion for summary judgment out

of time, and 2) denying Appellant's motion

for enlargement of time to respond. Under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), the district court is

granted broad discretion to expand filing

deadlines. See, e.g., Maldonado-Denis v.

Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576, 583 (1st

Cir.1994); Woods v. Allied Concord

Financial Corp., 373 F.2d 733, 734 (5th Cir.

1967).

Hetzel, 50 F.3d 367.

The Court has inherent authority to grant an extension of time to act upon its

own orders. In the present case, given the early stage of litigation, the apparent

lack of dispute among the parties for the relief requested, and the unprecedented

societal disruption caused by a global pandemic, the Court should grant the request

for an abatement or extension of time for the full time requested.

- 6 -

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 6 Filed 03/23/20 Page 6 of 8
RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant Dr. Edler respectfully requests this Court enter an Order granting

her a thirty (30) day enlargement of time to file and serve her response to the

Complaint, making such filing due on or before April 24, 2020.

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE

Undersigned counsel certifies that a good faith conference with counsel for

Plaintiff Selover was attempted on March 23, 2020, by e-mail and telephone. Lance

O. Leider, Esquire, an attorney with The Health Law Firm, contacted the attorney

for Plaintiff Selover, J.J. Talbott, Esquire, several times by telephone and e-mail

on March 23, 2020, finally speaking with him near close of business this date. Mr.

Talbott stated that he had no objection to the same relief sought by Co-Defendant

ECBCC (a seven (7) day extension of time. Therefore, Mr. Talbott, counsel for

Plaintiff, opposes this motion.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have served a copy of the foregoing by filing

it with the Clerk of Court via the CM/ECF System, which automatically serves a

copy on all parties who have appeared in this matter, on this 23rd day of March

2020.

- 7 -

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 6 Filed 03/23/20 Page 7 of 8
/s/ George F. Indest III

______________________________________

GEORGE F. INDEST III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M.

Florida Bar No.: 382426

Primary e-mail: GIndest@TheHealthLawFirm.com

Secondary e-mail: CourtFilings@TheHealthLawFirm.com

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT,

RAYME EDLER, M.D.

GFI/LOL/pa

S:\2500-2599\2531\002\410-Pleadings-Drafts & Finals-Fed\Motion-Ext to File Response-Final.wpd

- 8 -

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 6 Filed 03/23/20 Page 8 of 8