Bernath v. Seavey

Filing 84

ORDER granting 82 Defendant American Legion's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Rule 11 Motion, or, Alternatively, For Leave to File a Reply Thereto 82 to the extent that American Legion may file a reply brief, which does not exceed five (5) pages in length, on or before September 12, 2016. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 8/30/2016. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DANIEL A. BERNATH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-358-FtM-99CM

MARK CAMERON SEAVEY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant American Legion’s Motion to
Strike Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Rule 11 Motion, Or, Alternatively,
For Leave to File a Reply Thereto (Doc. #82) filed on August 25, 2016. American Legion
intervened as a named defendant in this suit (Doc. #66) and thereafter filed a counterclaim
against Plaintiff Daniel A. Bernath, who is appearing pro se. (Doc. #69). Plaintiff filed a
crossclaim against American Legion (Doc. #71), to which American Legion moved to
dismiss for failure to state claim (Doc. #77). Plaintiff filed an untimely response in
opposition to American Legion’s motion. (Doc. #80). And American Legion has now
moved to strike Plaintiff’s response as untimely, or, alternatively, it requests leave to file
a reply brief. (Doc. #82).

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their
websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The
Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.

Because of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will not strike his opposition to
American Legion’s motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, it will grant American Legion leave
to file a reply brief in order to respond to Plaintiff’s allegations. That said, the Court has
previously cautioned Plaintiff that, despite his pro se status, he must strictly comply with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures and Middle District of Florida Local Rules. (See
e.g., Doc. #40). And to the extent Plaintiff is a seasoned-licensed attorney in California,
he should be no stranger to the consequences of failing to comply with the Court’s
procedural rules. Consequently, this is Plaintiff’s last warning for non-compliance with
the federal and local rules; future non-compliant filings may be stricken without further
warning.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
Defendant American Legion’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to
Dismiss and Rule 11 Motion, or, Alternatively, For Leave to File a Reply Thereto (Doc.
#82) is GRANTED to the extent that American Legion may file a reply brief, which does
not exceed five (5) pages in length, on or before September 12, 2016.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 29th day of August, 2016.

Copies: All Parties of Record

2