Mendez Fuel Holdings LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: August 11, 2021
• Docket: 1:20-cv-22984
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-22984-CV-O’SULLIVAN

[CONSENT]

MENDEZ FUEL HOLDINGS, LLC, MENDEZ FUEL HOLDINGS 1, LLC, MENDEZ FUEL HOLDINGS 2, LLC, and MENDEZ FUEL HOLDINGS 3 LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KENDALL HEALTHCARE GROUP, LTD.,

Defendant,

and 7-ELEVEN, INC. and SEI FUEL SERVICES, INC., Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v. MENDEZ FUEL HOLDINGS 3 LLC and MICHAEL MENDEZ,

Counterclaim Defendants. ________________________________/ ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs 7- Eleven, Inc. and SEI Fuel Services, Inc.[’s] Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE# 98, 8/11/21). The defendants/ counterclaim plaintiffs 7-Eleven, Inc. and SEI Fuel Services, Inc. (collectively “SEIF Defendants”) maintain that they did not receive notice of the Mendez Fuel Holdings 3, LLC and Michael Mendez’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II of the Complaint and Count V of the Second Amended Counterclaim (DE# 88, 6/14/21). See Declarations of Eric Koenig and Urs Broderick Furrer (DE# 95-96 at ¶ 2, 8/9/21) (attesting that they “never received notification that Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment on Count II of the Complaint and Count V of the Second Amended Counterclaims.”). The plaintiffs/counter-defendants Mendez Fuel Holdings 3, LLC and Michael Mendez do not take the SEIF Defendants’ representations at face value. See Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants’ Response to Notice of Non-Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II of the Complaint and Count V of the Second Amended Counterclaim (DE# 97 at 2, 8/10/21) ( “Plaintiffs submit that a review of Defendants’ Response [ECF 94] raises even more questions as opposed to answering the precise question that was posed by the Court in the August 6, 2021 Order”). The Court has discretion in enforcing the Local Rules. See Fluor Intercontinental,

Inc. v. IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc., 533 F. App’x 912, 922 n. 35 (11th Cir. 2013) (noting that “a district court has discretion to waive or excuse noncompliance with its local rules.”). Moreover, summary judgment motions must be decided on the merits. “A district court cannot base the entry of summary judgment on the mere fact that the motion was unopposed, but, rather, must consider the merits of the motion.” United States v. One Piece of Real Prop. Located at 5800 SW 74th Ave., Miami, Fla., 363 F.3d 1099, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs 7- Eleven, Inc. and SEI Fuel Services, Inc.[’s] Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE# 98, 8/11/21) is GRANTED. The SEIF Defendants shall have until Monday, August 23, 2021 to file a response to the Mendez Fuel Holdings 3, LLC and Michael Mendez’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II of the Complaint and Count V of the Second Amended Counterclaim (DE# 88, 6/14/21) and the Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Mendez Fuel Holdings 3, LLC and Michael Mendez’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. DONE AND ORDERED in Chamber at Miami, Florida, this 11th day of August, 2021. OL JOHN J. OYSULLIVAN CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE