UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

In re:

Chance & Anthem, LLC,

 Debtor.

 /

Case No.: 18-16248-MAM

Chapter 7

Robert C. Furr,

 Plaintiff.

Adv. Proc. No. 19-1298-MAM

v.

Jeffrey M. Siskind, et al.

 Defendants. 

 /

Jeffrey M. Siskind,

 Counter-Plaintiff. 

v.

Genovese, Joblove & Battista, P.A., et al.

 Counter-Defendants. 

 /

Mindy A. Mora, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on June 4, 2020.

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 359 Filed 06/04/20 Page 1 of 5
2

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR 

LEAVE OF COURT TO LATE FILE INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT 

TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26(A)(1), 26(A)2), AND 26(A)(3)(A) AND TO FILE OUT 

OF TIME MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 322] 

THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Motion for Leave of Court to 

Late File Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), 26(a)(2), and 

(26(a)(2)(A) and to File Out of Time Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 

322] (the “Motion”) filed by Jeffrey Siskind (“Siskind”). In the Motion, Siskind states 

that “extreme unforeseen demands” upon Siskind due to “circumstances caused by 

the current social crisis” prevented him from timely complying with his discovery 

obligations. Motion at ¶ 3.

In support of his request, Siskind alleges, but does not substantiate via citation 

to appropriate case law or applicable rules, that his failure to comply with his 

discovery obligations constituted “excusable neglect”. Siskind also avers that the

manner and timing of the above-captioned plaintiff’s (“Trustee”) submission of expert 

reports contributed to his purported excusable neglect. Finally, Siskind contends that 

his submission of a motion for summary judgment should be granted because it will 

save time at trial. Siskind contends that no prejudice will occur to any party if the 

Court grants his requests. 

This case has been contentious from inception and subject to extensive motion 

practice beyond the usual motion practice attendant to a normal adversary 

proceeding in this Court. Although it is the Court’s practice to grant a reasonable 

requests for extensions under extraordinary circumstances, the Court is concerned 

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 359 Filed 06/04/20 Page 2 of 5
2

that the request in this instance likely indicates simple negligence coupled with a 

desire for delay. 

First, the Court has previously addressed and granted requests for extension 

of time to prepare for trial, one of which was agreed to by both Trustee and defendants 

(ECF No. 59) early on in this proceeding, another of which was made by the Trustee 

and unopposed by defendants (ECF No. 197) in December 2019, and the last of which 

was made by Siskind and the remaining defendants, and opposed by the Trustee 

(ECF No. 325) last month, in May 2020. Effectively, the Trustee has now signaled 

that he is ready to proceed to trial.

At the hearing conducted on May 12, 2020 on the last request for an extension 

of time to conduct discovery and to continue the pretrial conference, the Court 

granted one final extension of time for all parties, including Siskind, to prepare for 

trial and stated unequivocally on the record that the trial date will be set at the 

pretrial conference scheduled for July 14, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (ECF No. 325).

As a result of the Court’s prior ruling that no further extensions of the pretrial 

conference date would be granted, the Court perceives that the instant Motion is 

designed to obtain further delay in the trial of this proceeding.

Second, at the end of the instant Motion, Siskind included a certificate of 

service that merely reflected that service of the Motion was effected on the Trustee 

and other parties to this adversary proceeding. Pursuant to Local Rule 9073-1(D), the 

certificate of service is required to include a certification that movant’s attorney has 

contacted counsel for all adverse parties to attempt to resolve the matter which is the 

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 359 Filed 06/04/20 Page 3 of 5
2

subject of the motion without hearing. Notwithstanding that requirement, Siskind 

failed to include this type of certification either in the certificate of service or in the 

body of the Motion. As a result, the Court can only conclude that Siskind ignored his 

obligation to consult with opposing counsel set forth in Local Rule 9073-1(D).

Third, Siskind has failed to cite to appropriate support for his legal argument 

that “excusable neglect” exists under governing law. See, e.g., Jean-Felix v. Chicken 

Kitchen USA, LLC, No. 10-23105-CIV, 2013 WL 2243966, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 21, 

2013) (citing Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

Finally, the Court notes that Siskind filed a motion for partial summary 

judgment as ECF No. 319 (the “PSJ Motion”). The Court has previously scheduled 

a hearing upon the PSJ Motion to be held on June 5, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.

Therefore, the Court, being otherwise fully advised in the premises, ORDERS

AND ADJUDGES that:

1. The Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part solely as set forth 

herein.

2. The Court will GRANT a brief extension of time for Siskind to file his initial 

disclosures. Siskind must file his initial disclosures pursuant to Fed R. Civ. 

P. 26(A)(1), 26(A)(2) and 26(A)(3)(A) on or before June 10, 2020. No 

further extensions will be granted for any reason.

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 359 Filed 06/04/20 Page 4 of 5
2

3. In light of the Court’s consideration of the PSJ Motion on the merits at the 

hearing scheduled on June 5, 2020, Siskind’s request to file an untimely 

motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot. 

4. To the extent that the Motion is seeking leave to file another motion for 

summary judgment or partial summary judgment, that request is 

DENIED.

###

Copy furnished to: 

Jeffrey M. Siskind, Esq.

Mr. Siskind is directed to serve this order upon all interested parties and file a conforming 

certificate of service.

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 359 Filed 06/04/20 Page 5 of 5