Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-24040-CV-WILLIAMS

DOUG LONGHINI,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAJORCA INVESTMENT

PROPERTIES, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the Case and 

Vacate the Court’s Order Dismissing the Case (DE 11) (“Motion”). For the reasons set 

forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff initiated this matter on December 14, 2022 by filing the Complaint. (DE 1.)

The Court’s December 22, 2022 Order of Referral (DE 6) (“Order of Referral”) requires 

that “Plaintiff's counsel shall file with the Clerk of the Court a verified response to this 

order WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS from the date of this order.” (Id. at 2) (emphasis original). 

In the verified response, Plaintiff's counsel was required to, among other things, indicate 

whether the Defendants or the Defendants’ property or website had been sued prior to 

the filing of this suit for any alleged violations of the ADA. (Id. at 1–2.) Further, the Order 

of Referral puts the Parties on notice that: 

Noncompliance with any provision of this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Local Rules, or this Court’s Practices and Procedures . . . may 

subject the offending Party to sanctions, including dismissal of this case. It is the 

duty of all counsel to take all actions necessary to comply with this Order.

Case 1:22-cv-24040-KMW Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4

(Id. at 3) (emphasis original). On January 12, 2023, the Court dismissed this case without 

prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Order of Referral by failing to file 

verified response. (DE 8.) Following the dismissal of this case, Plaintiff filed the instant 

Motion. (DE 11.) Plaintiff asserts that the failure to comply with the Order of Referral was 

due to “a calendaring oversight by administrative staff” which it claims amounted to 

excusable neglect. (DE 11 at 3–4.) There is no excusable neglect in this matter.

The Eleventh Circuit has held that courts are to consider several factors in 

evaluating a party’s purported excusable neglect: danger of prejudice to the opposing 

party, length of the delay and potential impact on judicial proceedings; the reason for the 

delay, including whether it was within a party’s reasonable control; and whether the 

movant acted in good faith. Cheney v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., 71 F.3d 848, 850 

(11th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff argues that any delay was minimal and that Plaintiff’s counsel 

acted in good faith. However, Plaintiff’s reason for delay—a calendaring oversight which 

Plaintiff attributed to the holidays and a transition to remote work—does not constitute 

excusable neglect. In addition, Plaintiff was put on notice that failure to comply with the 

Court’s Order of Referral may result in sanctions, including dismissal of the case. 

Plaintiff’s reasoning fails to account for the fact that the Court waited nine days after the 

deadline and Plaintiff still had not filed the required verified response. Plaintiff had ample 

opportunity to file the required response by the deadline, seek an extension, or seek leave 

to file the response after the deadline.

1 On this basis, the Court found it appropriate to 

1 Plaintiff’s counsel are experienced litigators in this District and have brought hundreds 

of cases in this District and dozens of cases before the Court representing Plaintiff related 

to the Americans with Disabilities Act: the several avenues of action listed above are 

known to Counsel.

Case 1:22-cv-24040-KMW Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4

dismiss this action sua sponte, and Plaintiff’s Motion fails to demonstrate why the Court 

should reverse that decision and re-open this case. 

District courts are vested with “broad discretion in managing their cases . . .and 

ensuring that their cases move to a reasonably timely and orderly conclusion.” Watts v. 

Club Madonna, Inc., 784 F. App’x 684, 687–88 (11th Cir. 2019) (holding a district court 

did not abuse its discretion in denying a request for an extension after a party failed to 

meet a deadline in the court’s order) (citing Chrysler Int’l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 

1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002)); Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 

1269 (11th Cir. 2001) (reasoning that “we accord district courts broad discretion over the 

management of pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling”)); Chudasama v. 

Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997) (providing that “district courts 

enjoy broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases before them”); United 

States v. McCutcheon, 86 F.3d 187, 190 (11th Cir. 1996) (noting the “broad discretion 

which is allowed a trial court to manage its own docket”). 

The Court is vested with the inherent authority to manage its docket, including 

imposition of sanctions for failure to comply with a court order. See Fla. Power & Light 

Co. v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 85 F.3d 1514, 1521 (11th Cir. 1996) (stating “[d]istrict courts 

have broad discretion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to impose sanctions for 

failure to comply with court orders”); see also Myles v. Green, No. 08-20554-CIV, 2013 

WL 12201091, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2013) (citing Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. at 631) (“If 

Plaintiff suffers no penalty for his recalcitrance and neglect, there would be little or no 

disincentive for him attempt to wage future litigation in a similar manner. This court must 

not allow such conduct to go undeterred.”), report and recommendation adopted, No. 08-

Case 1:22-cv-24040-KMW Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

20554-CIV, 2013 WL 12201247 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2013), aff'd, 557 F. App’x 901 (11th 

Cir. 2014). In this matter, Plaintiff was put on notice that failure to comply with a Court 

order may result in sanctions, including dismissal of the case. Despite the Court’s order 

notifying Plaintiff of the possibility of dismissal, Plaintiff nevertheless failed to timely file

the verified response. Consequently, and in the absence of excusable neglect, the Court 

denies the motion. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion (DE 11) is 

DENIED. This case remains CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 22nd day

of September, 2023.

Case 1:22-cv-24040-KMW Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2023 Page 4 of 4