HOLCOMB
v.
CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY
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 plaintiff's motion for a case update and reconsideration of default judgment.
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a motion seeking notice of deficiencies via Pacer and reconsideration of a prior denial of default judgment against…
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 In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: MOTION FOR CASE UPDATE (Doc. No. 21) FILED: October 12, 2023
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Before the Court is a “Motion for Case Update” filed by Plaintiff, who appears pro se. Doc. No. 21. In the motion, “Plaintiff asks the Court to give Plaintiff notice of any deficiencies and requirements via Pacer” and “motions the Court to reconsider the motion for default judgment against the Defendants in favor of the Plaintiff.” Id. Upon review, the motion will be denied. First, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a) and does not include a memorandum of legal authority in support. Second, it is not entirely clear what relief Plaintiff seeks regarding “notice of any deficiencies and requirements via Pacer.” Third, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s prior Orders denying her requests for default,
see Doc. Nos. 10, 12, the motion provides no basis for reconsideration. See Doc. No. 21. also Stallworth v. Omninet Village, L.P., No. 6:16-cv-546-Orl-31DAB, 2016 WL 10100424, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016) (“Motions for reconsideration are permitted when there is (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” (citing Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Speciality Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 2d 1286, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2006), aff'd, 215 F. App’x 879 (11th Cir. 2007))). Insofar as Plaintiff is requesting an update regarding her request to proceed in forma pauperis, see Doc. Nos. 16-17, that request will be addressed in due course. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 25, 2023.
LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tristar Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Speciality Ins., 2006 WL 1528792 (M.D. Fla. 2006)