IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

RUBEN BELLO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., 

a Florida Company,1

Defendant. 

Case No.: 22-cv-23005-DPG 

DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PARTIALLY 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AFFIRMATIVE 

DEFENSES AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

Defendant, DHL Express (USA), Inc. (“DHL”), hereby replies to Plaintiff, Ruben Bello’s 

(“Bello”) Response in Opposition to DHL’s Partially Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend 

Affirmative Defenses and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (“Response”) [D.E. 22]. 

A. DHL’s Motion to Augment its After-Acquired Evidence Defense is Unopposed. 

DHL initially confirms that its Motion to augment Defense No. 39 is unopposed. Defense 

No. 39 is DHL’s after-acquired evidence defense and generally was preserved in its original 

Answer and Affirmative Defenses [D.E. 5]. However, based on the information elicited during 

discovery, DHL now moves to bolster the defense with specifics. Plaintiff asserts no opposition. 

Accordingly, at minimum, DHL’s motion should be granted as unopposed as to Defense No. 39. 

B. DHL Does Not Seek to Amend Deadlines from the Trial Order. 

Bello argues that DHL must meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(a)(4)’s “good cause” 

standard for amending the Court’s Scheduling Order Setting Civil Trial Date and Pretrial Schedule 

1 DHL is erroneously classified as a “Florida Company.” DHL is an Ohio corporation.

Case 1:22-cv-23005-DPG Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2023 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4 

CLARKE SILVERGLATE, P.A. 

(“Scheduling Order”) [D.E. 10] because the “deadline to amend pleadings” was on December 9, 

2022. However, the referenced deadline is to amend the complaint and to join additional parties 

only. The Order is silent as to other amendments. The parties jointly submitted a proposed Order 

using this phraseology. [D.E. 9]. Indeed, some defenses, such as DHL’s after-acquired evidence 

defense, do not ripen until the parties engage in discovery and new information is learned. The 

present Motion is timely, with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 providing the appropriate liberal 

standard. DHL does not seek to modify any of the deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order. If 

the Court in fact views DHL’s Motion as untimely, DHL stands down on this Motion except as to 

the agreed augmentation of Defense No. 39. 

C. DHL’s Proposed Amendment Will Not Prejudice Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff makes an unsupported argument that he will be unduly prejudiced by DHL’s 

proposed amended Defense No. 40. In fact, whether DHL asserted an exhaustion defense in its 

initial Answer [D.E. 5] would not have made a difference. DHL terminated Bello on July 1, 2020. 

“For a charge to be timely in a deferral state such as Florida, it must be filed within 300 days of 

the last discriminatory act.” E.E.O.C. v. Joe’s Stone Crabs, Inc., 296 F.3d 1265, 1271 (11th Cir. 

2002). Bello had until April 27, 2021, to file a Charge of Discrimination. He initiated this action 

in August 2022. [D.E. 1]. Even if DHL had included its exhaustion of administrative remedies 

defense in its September 2022 Answer [D.E. 5], Bello would not have been permitted to timely 

file a charge alleging disability discrimination. Therefore, DHL’s amendment will not prejudice 

Bello in any way. 

For the foregoing reasons, DHL’s Partially Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend 

Affirmative Defenses and Incorporated Memorandum of Law should be granted. 

Case 1:22-cv-23005-DPG Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2023 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4 

CLARKE SILVERGLATE, P.A. 

Respectfully submitted, 

CLARKE SILVERGLATE, P.A. 

5301 Blue Lagoon Drive, 9th Floor 

Miami, FL 33126 

Telephone: (305) 377-0700 

Facsimile: (305) 377-3001 

By: /s/ Craig Salner 

 Craig Salner 

 Florida Bar No. 669695 

csalner@cspalaw.com

smunguia@cspalaw.com

socd@cspalaw.com

 Maria J. Londono, Esq. 

 Florida Bar No. 1011034 

mlondono@cspalaw.com

jsantana@cspalaw.com

Counsel for Defendant DHL Express (USA), 

Inc. 

Case 1:22-cv-23005-DPG Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2023 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4 

CLARKE SILVERGLATE, P.A. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically 

filed on March 20, 2023, with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send efiling notices to all counsel of record listed below: 

Henry Hernandez, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 542601 

henry@hhlawflorida.com

GARCIA HERNANDEZ, P.A. 

2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 802 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

T: (305) 771-3374 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Monica Espino, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 834491 

me@espino-law.com

Espino Law, PL 

2250 SW 3rd Ave, Ste. 400 

Miami, FL 33129 

T: (305) 704-3172 

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff 

CLARKE SILVERGLATE, P.A. 

By: /s/ Craig Salner

Craig Salner

Case 1:22-cv-23005-DPG Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2023 Page 4 of 4