Jablonski v. The Travelers Companies, Inc.
Filing
47
ORDER granting in part 45 Plaintiff, Edward Jablonski's, Motion for Extension of 90 Days. Plaintiff shall have up to and including January 8, 2016 to respond to 37 Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Amended Complaint or Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with Prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 12/28/2015. (ANW)
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 COMPANIES,
INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff, Edward Jablonski’s, Motion for Extension of 90
Days (Doc. 45), filed on December 18, 2015. Defendant opposes the request. Doc.
46. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part.
It appears that Plaintiff, pro se, seeks a 90-day extension to respond to
Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint or Alternatively, Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with Prejudice (Doc. 37). Doc. 45 at 4.
As grounds, Plaintiff states that he is suffering from numerous medical issues, his
computer died and he is attempting to get an attorney. Id. at 4-6.
Defendant opposes the extension because it claims that Plaintiff’s claim was
already settled and it is unlikely that Plaintiff will retain counsel. Doc. 46 at 1-4.
Defendant contends that Plaintiff has been searching for an attorney for over two
years and it is not likely that Plaintiff will retain counsel any time soon. Id. at 4.
On December 3, 2015, U.S. District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell accepted
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 35) due to Plaintiff’s pro se status and allowed
Plaintiff up to and including December 18, 2015 to respond to Defendant’s motion to
dismiss (Doc. 37). Doc. 44. Judge Chappell cautioned Plaintiff 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
motion, and proceed in accordance with the Federal and Local Rules.” Id. at 2 (citing
Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002).
The Court notes that Plaintiff, in the present motion, failed to comply with
Local Rule 3.01(g). Local Rule 3.01(g) requires that each motion filed in a civil case,
with certain enumerated exceptions not at issue here, contain a statement “stating
whether counsel agree on the resolution of the motion.” Plaintiff previously has been
reminded of the requirement in Local Rule 3.01(g). Doc. 40. Plaintiff’s continued
failure to comply with the local and federal rules may result in sanctions.
As to Plaintiff’s request for an additional 90 days to respond to Defendant’s
motion to dismiss, the Court finds that the time period requested is excessive and is
not inclined to grant a 90-day extension. The Court will allow Plaintiff up to and
including January 8, 2016 to respond to Defendant’s motions to dismiss.
The Court also encourages Plaintiff to retain a lawyer.
Should Plaintiff
continue to proceed pro se, the Court reminds Plaintiff that before preparing any
further pleadings, Plaintiff is encouraged to visit the “Proceeding Without a Lawyer”
section of this Court’s website at www.flmd.uscourts.gov. The website includes tips,
frequently asked questions, sample forms, and a “Guide for Proceeding Without a
Lawyer.” Plaintiff is informed that if he chooses to proceed pro se, it is mandatory
-2-
that he proceed in accordance with Federal and Local Rules. Loren v Sasser, 309
F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002) (noting that despite certain leniency afforded pro se
parties, they must follow procedures).
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff, Edward Jablonski’s, Motion for Extension of 90 Days (Doc. 45) is
GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall have up to and including January 8, 2016 to
respond to Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint or
Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with Prejudice (Doc.
37).
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 28th day of December,
2015.
Copies:
Counsel of record
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?