Carroll-Brufsky et al v. The E.W. Scripps Company et al

Filing 43

ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend 40 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaint within 14 days. The Clerk shall docket said complaint upon receipt of same. Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike 37 is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 5/14/2012. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FT. MYERS DIVISION

MARCIA CARROLL-BRUFSKY and
ALLEN D. BRUFSKY,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:11-CV-500-FtM-99DNF

THE E.W. SCRIPPS COMPANY and US
BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
BENEFICIARIES & DESIGNEES OF THE
1993 REVOCABLE TRUST OF FRANK C.
BLUMEYER,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A.’s Motion to
Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike (Dkt. 37),
Plaintiffs’ Response (Dkt. 39), Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend (Dkt. 40), and Defendant U.S.
Bank, N.A.’s Response in opposition (Dkt. 41). The Court, having reviewed the motions,
response, and being otherwise advised of the premises, concludes that Plaintiffs’ motion to
amend should be granted and Defendant’s motion to dismiss should be denied as moot.
DISCUSSION
On or about September 2, 2011, pro se Plaintiffs Marcia Carroll-Brufsky and Allen
D. Brufsky filed this case against Defendants E.W. Scripps Company (“Scripps”) and US
Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Beneficiaries & Designees of the 1993 Revocable Trust of
Frank C. Blumeyer (“US Bank”), alleging a defamation claim against Scripps, and claims

for defamation, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution against US Bank. Subsequently,
Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint because the complaint
did not properly allege jurisdiction and did not include both Plaintiffs’ signatures (Dkts. 27
& 31).
On February 6, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint (Dkt. 32). On
February 20, 2012, Defendant Scripps filed a motion to dismiss and strike (Dkt. 33). On
April 9, 2012, this Court granted Scripps’ motion to dismiss and strike, without prejudice to
Plaintiffs to amend their claim (Dkt. 36). On April 16, 2012, Defendant US Bank filed the
instant motion (Dkt. 37). Notably, US Bank’s motion relates to the third amended complaint
that the court previously dismissed as to Defendant Scripps. And a number of US Bank’s
arguments in favor of dismissal were previously addressed by the Court as they related to
Scripps.
Presumably, in light of the above chain of events, Plaintiffs seek to amend their
complaint in response to US Bank’s motion, so that they can comply with the Court’s April
9, 2012 Order and amend their complaint as to both Defendants.
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ pro se status and in the interest of efficiency, the
Court concludes that Plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their complaint as to Defendant
US Bank. Importantly, this is Plaintiffs final opportunity to amend their complaint. Any
future dismissals of the complaint will be with prejudice.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

Page 2 of 3

1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend (Dkt. 40) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their

amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order. The Clerk of Court shall docket
said complaint upon receipt of same.
2.

Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion for

Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike (Dkt. 37) is DENIED as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on May 14, 2012.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Even\J-Gundlach\2-11-cv-500.mts37and40.wpd

Page 3 of 3