CORCHO
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
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.
A pro se plaintiff sought to conduct her entire litigation against Bank of America by written submission, citing financial hardship and accessibility limitations. The court denied the blanket request but indicated she could move for remote/virtual appearances at individual hearings.
The court denied the plaintiff's blanket request to conduct the entirety of the litigation by written submission, finding she failed to demonstrate that granting such relief would be a proper exercise of the court's authority to manage procedural aspects of its cases.
[1] A pro se litigant's motion to proceed by written submission for all court appearances must demonstrate that the court's authority is properly exercised in granting such a…
[2] A court has the authority to manage the procedural aspects of its cases.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“her motion is due to be denied because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the court's authority is properly exercised in granting her motion”
The court's reasoning for denying the motion—lack of proper justification for blanket relief
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYesenia Corcho, proceeding pro se, filed a renewed motion to be excused from in-person appearances, citing financial hardship and accessibility limita…
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 Financial Hardship cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, Yesenia Corcho, proceeding pro se, has filed a renewed motion to proceed by written submission, requesting that she be excused from “the requirement of in-person appearances[] due to financial hardship and accessibility limitations." (Dkt. 6 at 1.) While Plaintiff cites caselaw in support of her motion, the cases cited are either irrelevant, see Campbell-El v. Dist. of Columbia, 881 F. Supp. 42, 43 (D.D.C. 1995), or cannot be located by the court, see United States v. Mullins, 202 F. 3d 281, 285 (10th Cir. 2000); Moody v. Simmons, No. 1:14-cv-02273, 2015 WL 1802350 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2025). (Dkt. 6-1 at 2.) While the court has, as Plaintiff notes, authority to manage the procedural aspects of its cases, (Dkt. 6-1 at 1), her motion is due to be denied because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the court's authority is properly exercised in granting her motion, (see Dkts. 6, 6-1).
The court will not, at this case's outset, grant Plaintiff's blanket request to conduct the entirety of this litigation by written submission. However, Plaintiff
appears willing to appear at hearings virtually. (See Dkt. 6-1 at 2.) If and when a hearing is calendared in this matter, Plaintiff may move to conduct that hearing remotely or to appear virtually, though the court makes no representation as to how it will rule on such a motion.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. 6) is DENIED.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on July 8, 2025.
JULIE S. SNEED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Party
-2-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Corcho v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2015 WL 1802350 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…he cases cited are either irrelevant, see Campbell-El v. Dist. of Columbia, 881 F. Supp. 42, 43 (D.D.C. 1995), or cannot be located by the court, see United States v. Mullins, 202 F. 3d 281, 285 (10th Cir. 2000); Moody v. Simmons, No. 1:14-cv-02273, 2015 WL 1802350 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2025). (Dkt. 6-1 at 2.) While the court has, as Plaintiff notes, authority to manage the procedural aspects of its cases, (Dkt. 6-1 at 1), her motion is due to be denied because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the cour…
Authorities Cited
- Corcho v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2015 WL 1802350 (M.D. Fla. 2025)