Jablonski v. The Travelers Companies, Inc.

Filing 44

ORDER denying as moot 3 The Defendant, The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively, Motion for a More Definite Statement. Plaintiff has up to and including December 18, 2015, to file his response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint 37 . Failure to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss by the Court's deadline will result in the Court ruling on the Motion without benefit of a response. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 12/3/2015. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
EDWARD J. JABLONSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-365-FtM-38CM

THE TRAVELERS
INC.,

COMPANIES,

Defendant.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant, The Travelers Companies,
Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively, Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. #3)
filed on June 19, 2015. Plaintiff’s original Complaint was filed on June 19, 2015. After
requesting several extensions of time to file a response to the instant Motion to Dismiss,
the Plaintiff, Edward J. Jablonski filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. #35) on October 30,
2015. While Travelers objects to the Amended Complaint as untimely filed and improper
(Doc. #37), the Court will allow the Amended Complaint due to Plaintiff’s pro se status.
However, Plaintiff is cautioned that despite his pro se status, it is mandatory that he
participate and cooperate in discovery, comply with the deadlines established in the
Court’s Scheduling Order, respond properly to motions, and proceed in accordance with
the Federal and Local Rules. Loren v Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002)

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.

(holding that even pro se parties must follow procedures).

Failure to do so in the future

could result in sanctions or the denial of any motions or requests for relief from the Court.
On November 24, 2015, Plaintiff moved the Court for an extension of time to
respond (Doc. #38) to the Motion to Strike or Alternatively to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint.

The Magistrate Judge denied his request for an extension of time as

improperly filed but permitted Plaintiff to refile the Motion in accord with the local rules of
this Court. Plaintiff has failed to refile a motion for extension of time. In an effort to move
forward with this case, the Court will direct Plaintiff, if he so chooses, to file a response to
the Motion to Strike or Alternatively Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Since the Amended
Complaint has been accepted as the operative pleading, the original Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. #3) is due to be denied as moot.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. The Defendant, The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss or
Alternatively, Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. #3) is DENIED as
moot.
2. Plaintiff has up to and including December 18, 2015, to file his response to
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. #37). Failure
to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss by the Court’s deadline will result
in the Court ruling on the Motion without benefit of a response.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 3rd day of December, 2015.

Copies: All Parties of Record

2