FORT LAUDERDALE, FL, November 25, 2025 /24-7PressRelease/ -- In a decision with potentially broad implications for the administration of civil justice, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a district court ruling in George v. Griffin, Case No. 24‑13718, allowing a Rule 12(b) motion to proceed more than two and a half years after the deadline, after a trial date had been set, after mediation had been ordered, and after discovery had been reinstated.
No Rule 6(b) motion for extension was filed, and no findings of good cause or excusable neglect were made. The decision implicates long‑established precedent from both the Eleventh Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States requiring strict adherence to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Background on Procedural Requirements
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide a mandatory framework:
Rule 12(a) sets strict deadlines for responses.
Rule 12(b) motions to dismiss must comply with Rule 12(a).
Rule 6(b) requires:
a written motion, and
a showing of good cause or excusable neglect.
In George v. Griffin:
The Rule 12 motion was filed 30 months late.
It was filed after trial was scheduled, after mediation was ordered, and after discovery was reinstated.
No Rule 6(b) extension request was made.
No Rule 6(b) findings were entered.
The district court nevertheless ruled on the motion, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Uncertainty Now Facing Litigants Across the Eleventh Circuit
This ruling creates significant procedural uncertainty across Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. Litigants must now ask:
Are Rule 12 deadlines enforceable?
Must Rule 6(b) findings still be made before accepting late filings?
Can dispositive motions be filed after a trial date is set and still be heard?
Such uncertainty affects case planning, litigation strategy, and the ability of parties to rely on the timelines established by the Federal Rules.
Potential Unequal Application of Federal Rules
Although the case involves a large financial institution, the concern lies in the procedural impact. When a dispositive motion is permitted years after the deadline without the steps required by Rule 6(b), it may create the perception that litigants with substantial institutional resources operate under different procedural expectations than smaller parties.
Uniformity is a central purpose of the Federal Rules. Any deviation—intentional or not—creates concerns about consistent application across all litigants.
Supreme Court Should Intervene
This case presents precisely the kind of procedural question the Supreme Court typically reviews.
The Supreme Court traditionally grants certiorari when:
A federal rule of civil procedure is interpreted inconsistently or applied in an uncertain manner;
A circuit decision raises questions about national uniformity of procedural law;
A ruling affects large categories of litigants, not just the parties to a specific case; or
The decision may conflict with governing Supreme Court precedent.
The issues raised in George v. Griffin meet each of these criteria.
Why This Case Fits the Supreme Court's Criteria
National Uniformity at Risk:
If the Eleventh Circuit's approach to untimely Rule 12 motions differs from other circuits—or from the Federal Rules themselves—it creates inconsistent procedural standards across the country.
Conflict With Rule‑Based Authority:
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Federal Rules must be applied as written. Allowing late dispositive motions without Rule 6(b) compliance raises questions about adherence to those rulings.
Impact Beyond the Case:
Because Rule 12 motions and scheduling orders affect every civil litigant, the ruling has implications far beyond this single case.
Systemic Importance:
The Court often intervenes when the administration of justice may be affected by inconsistent or unclear procedural standards.
Given these factors, this case is an archetype of matters that warrant Supreme Court review to ensure that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure maintain consistent, nationwide application.
Conclusion
The Eleventh Circuit's ruling in George v. Griffin, Case No. 24‑13718, raises significant procedural issues that may affect the reliability of deadlines, the enforceability of scheduling orders, and the uniform application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By permitting a dispositive motion years after the deadline and after a case had already advanced into trial preparation, the ruling creates uncertainty that reaches every litigant within the Eleventh Circuit and could potentially influence federal districts nationwide.
Given the national importance of maintaining consistent procedural standards, Supreme Court review may be necessary to restore clarity and uniformity.
Donnahue George
Licensed Private Investigator
Juris Doctor | B.S. in Criminal Justice
Certified in Financial Fraud Investigations – Utica University
United States Marine
(347) 216 5257
donnahuegeorge@gmail.com
---
Press release service and press release distribution provided by https://www.24-7pressrelease.com
