Burgos v. Entertainment 2851, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

JAMIE BURGOS, Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:22-cv-1171-KKM-TGW ENTERTAINMENT 2851, LLC, MICHAEL TOMKOVICH, and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants.

ORDER Jamie Burgos sues Entertainment 2851, LLC, Michael Tomkovich, and ten unnamed Defendants (“Does 1 through 10”) under the Fair Labor Standards Act. See Compl. (Doc. 1). Because “fictitious-party pleading” is usually not permitted in federal

court, Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 738 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam), this Court ordered Burgos to show cause why Does 1 through 10 are proper defendants. Order to Show Cause (Doc. 76). Burgos—through a declaration filed by counsel—responds that she “recently” determined the “true names and capacities” of Does 1 through 10. See Decl. of Vulic re: OSC (Doc. 79 at 4 6). She also alleges that Defendant Tomkovich is destroying evidence, and claims that she is exploring whether to amend her complaint to include an

additional cause of action against Tomkovich. (Id. at 44 7-9.) Finally, Burgos hopes “to stipulate for an extension of all related dates and deadlines, including [the] discovery cut- off.” (Id. at § 10.) Because Burgos certified that she discovered the identities of Does 1 through 10, the Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. No later than March 24, 2023, Burgos must move to amend her complaint to name the Doe Defendants and explain why an amendment is proper under Rule 15(c)(1)(C), FED. R. CIV. P. If Burgos fails to timely

move, this Court will dismiss her suit against Does 1 through 10. Similarly, if Burgos desires to amend her complaint to include an additional cause of action, Burgos must move for the Court’s leave or gain the Defendants’ “written consent.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2); id. at 7(b). A declaration by counsel suggesting the

party might take future action is insufficient. Burgos must file a motion setting forth the relief sought and the legal basis entitling her to it. See, e.g., Restorative Care of Am., Inc.

v. Josloff, No. 8:22-cv-1404-KKM-AEP, 2023 WL 2413816, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2023) (Mizelle, J.). Burgos must also comply with the Local Rules, including the obligation to confer with opposing counsel about most motions. See Local Rule 3.01(g). Finally, if the parties seek an extension of the Case Management Scheduling Order’s deadlines, (Doc. 39), the parties must move for an amended scheduling order explaining

the good cause for the relief. See FED. R. CIV. P. 16. Stipulations will not automatically alter court-ordered deadlines. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on March 14, 2023.

patron Mizelle United States District Judge