ANDERSON
v.
THE CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH MUNICIPAL
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 motions without prejudice for failing to comply with local rules and procedural requirements.
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed multiple motions, some appearing to be responses to motions to dismiss and others seeking summary judgment. The cou…
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 Memorandum Of Legal Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
REPLY TO A RESPONSE NON COMPLIANCE (Doc. No. 28) prejudice. This cause comes before the Court on the above-styled motions, filed by Plaintiff Shirley Baker Anderson, who appears pro se. Doc. Nos. 26–28. It is not clear from any of the motions what relief Plaintiff seeks. For one, Plaintiff appears to at least partly respond to allegations from Defendant the City of Daytona Beach’s motions to dismiss. By the title of the motions, Plaintiff also appears to request summary judgment. The remainder of Plaintiff’s motions reference, among other things, prior Court Orders, Local Rules, Florida Statutes, the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, and alleged conduct by Defendants. See id. Upon consideration, each of the motions (Doc. Nos. 26–28) will be denied without prejudice for failure to comply with the Local Rules of this Court, including
Local Rules 1.08, 3.01(a), and 3.01(g). Any renewed motions must comply with all Local Rules, include a memorandum of legal authority in support, and state Defendants’ position on the request. The Court notes that to the extent that Plaintiff’s motions are an attempt to respond to motions to dismiss, Plaintiff may file a response to any pending motions to dismiss, as appropriate, in accordance with Local Rule 3.01(c). However, insofar as Plaintiff seeks summary judgment, that request is premature, as discovery has yet to commence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). See also Smith v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 713 F. 3d 1059, 1064 (11th Cir. 2013) (“Summary judgment is premature when a party is not provided a reasonable opportunity to discover information essential to his opposition.”).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 25, 2022.
Ayn
LESLIE AN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
_4-