PANTLE
v.
CRAWFORD
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 denied the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice because it was not properly supplemented as required by local rules. The plaintiff's motion to extend time was denied as moot.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to respond. The defendants' motion to dismiss was not properly supplemen…
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 Local Rule 3.01(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
MEMORANDUM OF LAW (Doc. No. 14)
FILED: October 4, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Defendants have not supplemented the motion as required by Local Rule 3.01(g)(3). See Local Rule 3.01(g)(3) (providing that if the opposing party is unavailable for a conference prior to filing a motion, the movant must diligently
attempt contact for three days, and upon contact or expiration of the three-day period, the movant must file a supplement to the motion, and that failure to supplement can result in the denial of a motion without prejudice). Defendants may re-file the motion within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, in full compliance with the Local Rules.
MOTION: MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER
MOTION TO DISMISS PENDING THE OUTCOME
OF MOTION OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT (Doc. No. 17)
FILED: October 17, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff seeks a 30-day extension of time to respond to Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 14), which motion has been denied without prejudice by this Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED as moot. However, the Court notes that Plaintiff's motion fails to comply with the Local Rules as well, in particular Local Rules 3.01(a) and 3.01(g). See also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989) (a pro se litigant "is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."). In addition, the Court notes that the Local Rules provide that parties have twenty-one (21) days to respond to a motion to dismiss. See Local Rule 3.01(c).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 21, 2024.
Uslis Horan Price
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moon v. Lanson Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Flores-Dominguez v. United States, 493 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1989)