ABDEL-FATTAH
v.
BELAL
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 granted in part Defendants' request for intervention regarding service of documents, ordering all future filings to be served by U.S. mail.
Defendants filed a letter requesting court intervention regarding service of documents. The Court construed this letter as a motion and addressed the …
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 Court Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
(And Direction to Clerk of Court)
This cause comes before the Court upon the filing of a letter from Defendants addressed to the undersigned. Doc. No. 19. Upon review, and based on the representations made in the letter, the Court has made an exception to Local Rule 3.01(j) and permitted the filing to be placed on the docket and construed as a motion. See Local Rule 1.01(b). However, the parties are cautioned that going forward, the Court will not accept unauthorized correspondence of this nature. See Local Rule 3.01(j) (“NO UNAUTHORIZED CORRESPONDENCE. A party may not use a letter, email, or the like to request relief or to respond to a request for relief.”). To the extent that Defendants request Court intervention with regard to service of documents in this matter, the request (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED in part.
It is ORDERED that going forward, all filings by all parties to this case must be served on the opposing party by U.S. mail on the same day the filing is made with the Court. Service via email will not suffice. All filings must include a certificate of service demonstrating compliance with this service requirement. Defendants’ requests (Doc. No. 19) are DENIED in all other respects. The Court reminds the parties that, although each appear pro se, they are still obligated to comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules of this
Court, and Court Orders. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (a pro se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Failures to comply may result in sanctions without further notice. See also Doc. No. 4 (“Failure to comply with ANY Local Rules or Court Orders may result in the imposition of sanctions including, but not limited to, the dismissal of this action or entry of default without further notice.”). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of the docket sheet to all parties, along with a copy of this Order. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 1, 2023.
ayn [...]
LESLIE AN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Qo
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moon v. Lanson Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Moon v. Newsome, 493 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1989)