BENJAMIN JOSEPH LIGIERI
v.
AMAZON.COM, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted the plaintiff's renewed motion for leave to file an amended complaint, extending the deadline for filing.
[1] A court may grant an extension of time to file an amended complaint upon a showing of excusable neglect, even if the deadline has passed.
[2] Pro se litigants are afforded some leniency when seeking extensions of time due to circumstances such as illness, travel, and the complexities of court rules.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Given that the Court previously found leave to amend appropriate, see Doc. No. 15, and in light of Plaintiff's pro se status and the representations made in the motion, and although the issue of excusable neglect is a close one (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B)), the Court finds an extension of the November 30, 2025 deadline for filing the amended complaint appropriate.”
Establishes that the court granted plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline for filing an amended complaint despite missing the original deadline, citing pro se status as a relevant factor.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, a pro se litigant, missed the court-ordered deadline to file an amended complaint. He sought an extension, citing a convergence of extr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Transfer cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Leave to File and Deem First Amended Complaint Operative, to Consider Plaintiff's Emergency TRO and Preliminary Injunction, and for Authorization to File Via CM ECF (With Memorandum of Law). Doc. No. 27. Defendant opposes in part, with respect to the filing of an amended complaint. Doc. No. 29.
As relevant, Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint in accordance with the Court's prior order giving him through November 30, 2025 to do so. See Doc. No. 15. Plaintiff missed that deadline, but says it was due to “a convergence of extraordinary and time-sensitive circumstances," to include holidays, “practical limitations of paper filing as a pro se litigant, illness, and Plaintiff's temporary travel
without access to a computer, and the need to carefully review and comply with this District's fastidious Local Rules and formatting requirements." Doc. No. 27, at 3. Defendant, on the other hand, contends that Plaintiff's proposed amendment is in bad faith and futile as demonstrated by a pending motion to transfer (Doc. No. 8), and it is unsupported by good cause for the delay. Doc. No. 29.
Given that the Court previously found leave to amend appropriate, see Doc. No. 15, and in light of Plaintiff's pro se status and the representations made in the motion, and although the issue of excusable neglect is a close one (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B)), the Court finds an extension of the November 30, 2025 deadline for filing the amended complaint appropriate. Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 27) requests leave to file an amended complaint, the motion will be GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order [fn 1].
The remainder of Plaintiff's requests, however, are DENIED for the same reasons previously set forth by the Court. See Doc. No. 26. Specifically, once Plaintiff files his amended complaint, it does not appear that he would require leave of Court to file a renewed motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction. And although Plaintiff renews his request for access to CM/ECF, the
[*2]renewed motion again does not establish good cause or extenuating circumstances in support. See, e.g., Clifft v. Sch. Dist. of Lee Cnty., No. 2:25-cv-345-JES-DNF, 2025 WL 3012038, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 28, 2025), reconsideration denied, No. 2:25-cv-345- JES-DNF, 2025 WL 3080533 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2025) (affirming denial of CM/ECF access to pro se litigants, finding that unpredictable delays and mail delivery risks, complexity of the case, and inability to obtain legal counsel did not rise to the level necessary to justify CM/ECF access) [fn 2].
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 14, 2026.
Leslie Hoffman Price LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
[*3][fn 1]: The Court will not entertain Plaintiffs request to consider a previous proposed amended complaint attached to a prior motion, see Local Rule 3.01(h), and instead, Plaintiff must make a separate filing.
[fn 2]: To the extent that Defendant seeks affirmative relief in response to the motion, such that if leave to amend is permitted the Court concurrently grant its motion to transfer, see Doc. No. 29, at 12 n.5, the request is denied for two reasons. First, "[i]t is not appropriate to seek an order for affirmative relief in a response to a motion." See Armington v. Dolgencorp. Inc., No. 3:07-cv-1130-J-JRK, 2009 WL 210723, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2009). Second, the motion to transfer (Doc. No. 8) remains pending before the presiding District Judge, and the undersigned declines to speak to its merits.