U.S. v. TOLEDO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
RAMON A. TOLEDO, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 07-60341-CIV-COHN/Seltzer.
United States District Court, S.D. Florida.
May 18, 2010.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTING MOTION TO RESCHEDULE PRETRIAL DEADLINES ORDER SETTING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
JAMES I. COHN, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 50], the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for the Defendant [DE 53], Plaintiff's Notice of Counsel Withdrawing from Case and Request to Reschedule Mediation, Pretrial, and Trial Dates [DE 58], and the United States' Agreed Motion to Stay All Deadlines Pending Adjudication of the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 59]. The Court has carefully considered the filings and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
Plaintiff United States of America filed this action against several defendants to reduce to judgment Defendant Ramon Toledo's various federal income tax liabilities, foreclose upon federal tax liens on a specific piece of property owned by Ramon Toledo, and to sell the property at a public sale to pay off the judgment. After filing an Answer [DE 13], Defendant Ramon Toledo filed for bankruptcy. Three Defendants: Damary Toledo (Ramon's wife), the homeowners' association wherein the property is located, and a contractor who purportedly worked on the home, were subject to a final summary judgment default ending any interest they had in the subject property [DE 39]. The remaining defendant, Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., filed an answer with affirmative defenses alleging the priority of its mortgage lien versus the federal tax liens. The Court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment that its tax lien has priority over Defendant Countrywide's interest with regard to the federal tax lien for the year 1994.
After Ramon Toledo's second bankruptcy case was dismissed, the Court reopened this case. Plaintiff has now moved for summary judgment. A response to that motion was due by April 26, 2010. Meanwhile, on April 12, 2010, Mr. Toledo's counsel, Michael Frank, moved to withdraw. No objection to that motion has been received. Rather, Plaintiff himself filed a request seeking to obtain new counsel and asking for a 60 day extension of all deadlines. The United States has now filed an agreed motion to continue the present deadlines until the motion for summary judgment is adjudicated.1
In the interest of justice, the Court will grant Mr. Toledo's pro se request for a 60 day extension of time from April 23, 2010, the date of his request. Therefore, his response to the motion for summary judgment shall be due by June 22, 2010. No further extensions shall be granted absent extraordinary circumstances, even if Mr. Toledo does not find an attorney. The Court will grant the motion to withdraw. As for the Agreed Motion, the Court will reset the deadlines rather than granting a stay.
Accordingly, the Court having carefully reviewed all filings and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant's Counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for the Defendant [DE 53] is hereby GRANTED;
2. Attorney Michael A. Frank, Esq. and the firm of Brooks, Frank and De La Guardia shall have no further responsibility for this action;
3. Defendant Ramon Toledo's Notice of Counsel Withdrawing from Case and Request to Reschedule Mediation, Pretrial, and Trial Dates [DE 58] is hereby GRANTED;
4. Ramon Toledo's Response to the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 50] shall be due by June 22, 2010;
5. The United States' Agreed Motion to Stay All Deadlines Pending Adjudication of the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 59] is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in that no stay will issue but the remaining deadlines are extended;
