Metz v. Sterling

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: July 16, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00070
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

GEORGE DOUGLAS METZ, II ,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:20-cv-70-FtM-38NPM

RANDALL STERLING and CHARLOTTE COUNTY GOVENMENT,

Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER1 Before the Court is a letter from Plaintiff George Metz (Doc. 12), which the Court interprets as a motion to vacate the judgment. The Court dismissed this case because Metz failed to timely serve Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and did not show good cause for the failure. Metz’s letter states that he left the state in early March—a month after filing his Complaint—to “wait out” the coronavirus pandemic. Metz prepared a summons for each Defendant after returning to Florida in June—too late to timely serve Defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) allows courts to relieve parties from final judgment for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” But a mere lack of diligence is not enough. Aguiar-Carrasquillo v. Agosto-Alicea, 445 F.3d 19, 28 (1st Cir. 2006). Metz had ample time to serve Defendants before he left town, and he could have

1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. served Defendants by mail from outside the state. The Court finds no good cause to vacate the Judgment. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Plaintiff George Metz’s letter, interpreted as a motion to vacate the judgment, (Doc. 12) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 16th day of July, 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record