UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

ABRAHAM DUARTE,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-408-SPC-KCD

v.

TROOPER JAVIER RIVERA, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR INJUCTIVE RELIEF; FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL, A DIVISION OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES; and SIRCHIE ACQUISTION COMPANY, LLC,

Defendants. /

ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Florida Highway Patrol’s (“FHP”) Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Amended Complaint. (Doc. 42.) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow this Court to “extend the time” an act must be done “for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Good cause in this context is not a strict standard. It is meant to accommodate any myriad of circumstances that might necessitate more time. See, e.g., Gillio v. US Bank NA, No. 612CV1548ORL36TBS,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 1, 2013) (“The Court routinely grants extensions when they are sought in good faith; do not prejudice a party; are not likely to create future case management problems; the Court will still have sufficient time to decide dispositive motions; and the extension will not impact the trial date.”).

Here, FHP seeks a short extension to prepare a responsive pleading. FHP cites the need to review materials and research the issues to prepare the response. The Court finds this an acceptable showing of good cause under the circumstances, given the lack of any apparent prejudice. The motion is also

unopposed. Further, given the extension, the clerk’s default (Doc. 40) is vacated. And the motion for default judgment (Doc. 43) is denied as moot. Defendant Javier Rivera also seeks an extension of time to respond to the amended complaint to coordinate with other parties involved and prepare

an adequate response. (Doc. 44.) Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. The Court finds good cause to allow this extension too. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Defendant Florida Highway Patrol’s Unopposed Motion for Extension

of Time to Respond to the Amended Complaint (Doc. 42) is GRANTED. FHP must respond to the amended complaint on or before August 29, 2025. 2. The Clerk’s default (Doc. 40) is VACATED and Plaintiff’s Motion for

Default Judgment (Doc. 43) is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. Defendant Javier Rivera’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Amended Complaint (Doc. 44) is GRANTED. Rivera must respond to the amended complaint on or before September 3, 2025. ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 18, 2025.

Pe a Le CG, Dudek United States Magistrate Judge