SAITO
v.
PATEL

M.D. Fla. | 2024-04-11
No. 2:24-cv-65
2023 WL 4705835 2024 FFL 9144 District Court, M.D. Florida (2024) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 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.


Holding

The court held that a motion to strike is generally a time-waster and denied the County's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' opposition brief.


Facts & Procedural History

Collier County moved to strike Plaintiffs' brief in opposition to the County's motion to dismiss, arguing it was filed without leave and after the dea…

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.


Opinion of the Court

Defendant Collier County moves to strike Plaintiffs' brief in opposition to its motion to dismiss. (Doc. 39.) [fn 1] As this Court has said time and again, motions to strike are often “time wasters.” Baumgardner v. Am. Mod. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 2:23-CV-298-JLB-KCD, 2023 WL 4705835, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 24, 2023). The County's motion here is no exception.

First, citing Local Rule 3.01, the County argues that Plaintiffs never sought leave to file a reply brief. (Doc. 39 at 3.) But Plaintiffs have not filed a reply. They filed a response to the motion to dismiss, which is allowed without

leave. The County stresses that pro se litigants, like Plaintiffs, “must adhere to the rules of this court.” (Doc. 36 at 4.) True. But so must lawyers. Local Rule 3.01 could not be clearer that Plaintiffs were entitled to file a response to the motion to dismiss: “A party responding to a motion or brief may file a legal memorandum no longer than twenty pages inclusive of all parts.” (Local Rule 3.01(b) (emphasis added).)

Next, the County seeks to strike Plaintiffs' brief because it came after the twenty-one-day deadline allowed under Local Rule 3.01. (Doc. 39 at 5.) Come on. This is not a case where Plaintiffs filed their brief months or even weeks past the deadline. We are talking three days after accounting for mailing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (“When a party may or must act within a specified time after being served and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C) (mail),.. 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire[.]"). Short extensions of time are routinely granted to pro se litigants. The Court is inclined to do that here rather than further delay resolving the County's motion to dismiss on the merits.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

1. Defendant Collier County's Motion to Strike Petitioners'

Opposition to Collier County's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 39) is DENIED;

2. The Court accepts Plaintiffs' Opposition to Collier County's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 36) as filed.

3. For the same reasons discussed above, Collier County's motion for leave to “reply" (Doc. 41) is DENIED AS MOOT. Leave is not needed for the County to respond to the pending motion under Local Rule 3.01.

ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 11, 2024.

Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge

Copies: All Parties of Record

[fn 1]: Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Noshirvan v. Couture, 2023 WL 2924746 (M.D. Fla. 2024)
    …alterations have been omitted in this and later citations. 2 ---PAGE 3--- Case 2:23-cv-01218-JES-KCD Document 193 Filed 11/19/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID 2574 often "time wasters.” Baumgardner v. Am. Mod. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 2:23-CV-298-JLB-KCD, 2023 WL 4705835, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 24, 2023). Thus, before seeking such relief, this Court requires the movant to review several cases and “explain in the motion why the requested relief is warranted notwithstanding [these] authorities.” (Doc. 25 at 9.) Garramo…
    1 / 2
  • Saito v. Patel, 2023 WL 4705835 (M.D. Fla. 2024)
    …r County moves to strike Plaintiffs' brief in opposition to its motion to dismiss. (Doc. 39.)¹ As this Court has said time and again, motions to strike are often “time wasters.” Baumgardner v. Am. Mod. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 2:23-CV-298-JLB-KCD, 2023 WL 4705835, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 24, 2023). The County's motion here is no exception. First, citing Local Rule 3.01, the County argues that Plaintiffs never sought leave to file a reply brief. (Doc. 39 at 3.) But Plaintiffs have not filed a reply. They filed…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw