Baez v. MSC Cruises S.A.

S.D. Florida

Baez v. MSC Cruises S.A.

DecidedSeptember 11, 2020

Docket1:20-cv-22732

StatusUnknown

This text of Baez v. MSC Cruises S.A. (Baez v. MSC Cruises S.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baez v. MSC Cruises S.A., (S.D. Fla. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami Division Case Number: 20-22732-CIV-MORENO BETTINA BAEZ, Plaintiff, VS. MSC CRUISES, S.A., Defendant. / ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon MOTION TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMIATIONS DEADLINE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEADLINE (D.E. 5), filed on August 24, 2020. THE COURT has considered the motion, the response in opposition, the reply, pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is aware it has the authority to equitably toll the limitations period if Plaintiff meets her requisite burden. See Booth v. Carnival Corp., 522 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2008); Justice v. U.S., 6 F.3d 1474, 1479 (11th Cir. 1993), Nonetheless, it finds that such a ruling is premature in the instant case. Plaintiff asks the Court to toll the limitations period in the hypothetical scenario that Plaintiff finds it necessary to amend her complaint based on something in the Defendant’s answer or response. Indeed, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was filed a full week after the Plaintiff filed her Motion to Extend.

Consequently, it is ADJUDGED that the motion is DENIED fh, DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ZL of September 2020.

pe MORENO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Miami Division Case Number: 20-22732-CIV-MORENO BETTINA BAEZ, Plaintiff, VS. MSC CRUISES, S.A., Defendant. / ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon MOTION TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMIATIONS DEADLINE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEADLINE (D.E. 5), filed on August 24, 2020. THE COURT has considered the motion, the response in opposition, the reply, pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is aware it has the authority to equitably toll the limitations period if Plaintiff meets her requisite burden. See Booth v. Carnival Corp., 522 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2008); Justice v. U.S., 6 F.3d 1474, 1479 (11th Cir. 1993), Nonetheless, it finds that such a ruling is premature in the instant case. Plaintiff asks the Court to toll the limitations period in the hypothetical scenario that Plaintiff finds it necessary to amend her complaint based on something in the Defendant’s answer or response. Indeed, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was filed a full week after the Plaintiff filed her Motion to Extend.

Consequently, it is ADJUDGED that the motion is DENIED fh, DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ZL of September 2020.

pe MORENO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Baez v. MSC Cruises S.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baez-v-msc-cruises-sa-flsd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack