ANTHONY JOHN BONADIES
v.
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB AS TRUSTEE FOR CSMC 2022 JR-1 TRUST

M.D. Fla. | 2025-12-31
No. 6:25-cv-01254
2025 WL 1873311 2025 FFL 32793 District Court, M.D. Florida (2025) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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.

Synopsis

The district court dismissed plaintiff's action with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order requiring amendment of a deficient complaint within a specified deadline. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, failed to file an amended complaint or request an extension despite notice of the consequences of noncompliance.

Holding

The court dismissed the action with prejudice because the plaintiff willfully failed to comply with the court's prior order to file an amended complaint by the deadline, and lesser sanctions would not adequately deter such noncompliance.

Headnotes

[1] Dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate sanction for willful noncompliance with a court order to file an amended complaint when the plaintiff fails to timely amend or…

Previewing 1 of 1 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
Key Quotes

“Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (doc. # 11) was previously dismissed without prejudice by separate order as an impermissible shotgun pleading.”

Establishes the nature of the defect in the original pleading requiring amendment.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was previously dismissed without prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading. The court granted leave to amend …

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.

Topics
Dismissal For Failure To Comply With Court Orders Willful Failure To Comply Lesser Sanctions Sanctions For Non-Compliance

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dismissal For Failure To Comply With Court Orders cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon review of the file. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (doc. # 11) was previously dismissed without prejudice by separate order as an impermissible shotgun pleading. (Doc. # 22). Plaintiff was given leave to amend on or before November 12, 2025, and was warned that failure to comply may result in dismissal without further notice.

The docket reflects that copies of the Court's order were duly mailed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond within the time allowed. Plaintiff has also failed to request an extension or show good cause for noncompliance.

The Court finds Plaintiff has willfully failed to comply with the Court's prior order, and that lesser sanctions will not further deter noncompliance. See Makozy v. United Parcel Serv., No. 24-13649, 2025 WL 1873311, at *2 (11th Cir. July 8, 2025).

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:

1. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice; and 2. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, this December 31, 2025.

ANNE LEIGH GAYLORD MOE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Pro se parties

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Bonadies v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB, 2025 WL 1873311 (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …extension or show good cause for noncompliance. The Court finds Plaintiff has willfully failed to comply with the Court’s prior order, and that lesser sanctions will not further deter noncompliance. See Makozy v. United Parcel Serv., No. 24-13649, 2025 WL 1873311, at *2 (11th Cir. July 8, 2025). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: 1. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice; and 2. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida,…
  • Makozy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2025)
    …ing that even though the district court dismissed the case without prejudice, the statute of limitations effectively rendered the dismissal with prejudice and precluded Mr. Makozy from re-filing his case. Makozy v. United Parcel Serv., No. 24-13649, 2025 WL 1873311, at *2 n.3, *4 (11th Cir. July 8, 2025). After the Eleventh Circuit issued its opinion, Mr. Makozy moved to reopen the district court case, and his motion was denied. Makozy, No. 23-cv-21544 at ECF No. 102. Then, on August 4, 2025, Mr. Makozy filed…
    1 / 2
  • Ugarte v. Fritanga Monimbo Fontainebleu, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2025)
    …e Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of his right to sue." Makozy v. 3 ---PAGE 4--- Case 1:25-cv-23949-BB Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2025 Page 4 of 5 Case No. 25-cv-23949-BLOOM/Elfenbein United Parcel Serv., No. 24-13649, 2025 WL 1873311, at *1 n.2 (11th Cir. July 8, 2025) (citing Santini v. Cleveland Clinic Fla., 232 F.3d 823, 824-25 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curium)). If a defendant contests the timeliness of the complaint, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that she met t…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw