Jablonski v. Martin et al

Filing 62

ORDER denying 58 Plaintiff's "Plaintiff is of Motion Dismissed, of 'Order' did not Know Facts In", which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration, is ; granting in part and denying in part 60 Plaintiff' ;s "Motion Extension 2nd Amended, Me Today Paid Lawyer For Him To 2. (EJ) Filed Exhibited Facts, Asks Motion to Examine EXH's + Pre Files", which the Court construes as a motion for extension of time, is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff has until on or before Friday, July 8, 2016, to file the second amended complaint. Failure to meet this deadline will result in this action being dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 6/27/2016. (LMF)

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

Case No: 2:15-cv-383-FtM-38CM

CHRISTOPHER W. MARTIN, TODD
M. LONERGAN and MARTIN,
DISIERE, JEFFERSON & WISDOM,
Defendants.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Edward J. Jablonski’s “Plaintiff is
of Motion Dismissed, of ‘Order’ did not Know Facts In” (Doc. #58) and “Motion Extension
2nd Amended, Me Today Paid Lawyer For Him To 2. (EJ) Filed Exhibited Facts, Asks
Motion to Examine EXH’s + Pre Files” (Doc. #60). Defendants did not respond to these
filings.
Defendants removed this action to federal court on June 26, 2015. (Doc. #1).
Shortly thereafter, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. #10).
The Court granted Defendants’ Motion, finding Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to meet any of
the standards outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (Doc. #20). Over the next
four months, the Court granted Plaintiff several extensions of time to amend his complaint.

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.

In February 2016, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. (Doc. #39). Defendants filed
another motion to dismiss, averring Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint suffered from the same
flaws as his original Complaint. (Doc. #46). The Court agreed and dismissed Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint. (Doc. #59). The Court allowed Plaintiff one additional chance to
produce a complaint that complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. #59).
Instead of complying with the Court’s instructions, Plaintiff submitted the two filings at
issue. Although difficult to interpret, the Court will construe these filings as a motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s May 25, 2016 Order (Doc. #59) and a motion for extension
of time to file a second amended complaint. The Court will address each in turn.
A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
Reconsideration of a court’s previous order is an extraordinary remedy and, thus,
is a power that should be used sparingly. American Ass’n of People with Disabilities v.
Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003). The courts have “delineated three
major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law;
(2) the availability of new evidence; (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” Susman v. Salem, Saxon & Meilson, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 904 (M.D. Fla.
1994). “A motion for reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely readdress
issues litigated previously.” Paine Webber Income Props. Three Ltd. Partnership v. Mobil
Oil Corp., 902 F. Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995). The motion must set forth facts or
law of a strongly convincing nature to demonstrate to the court the reason to reverse its
prior decision. Taylor Woodrow Construction Corp. v. Sarasota/Manatee Auth., 814 F.
Supp. 1072, 1072-1073 (M.D. Fla. 1993).

2

Here, the Court finds no basis to reconsider its May 25, 2016 Order. Plaintiff’s
“Plaintiff is of Motion Dismissed, of ‘Order’ did not Know Facts In” (Doc. #58), which the
Court construes as a motion for reconsideration, is filled with a confusing mixture of
allegations and irrelevant facts. None of these allegations or facts warrant reconsidering
the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. #39) failed to satisfy the
requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
motion for reconsideration is denied.
B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension
Similar to the analysis above, Plaintiff’s “Motion Extension 2nd Amended, Me
Today Paid Lawyer For Him To 2. (EJ) Filed Exhibited Facts, Asks Motion to Examine
EXH’s + Pre Files” (Doc. #60), which the Court construes as a motion for extension of
time, is a mix of confusing narrative and irrelevant facts. The Court warned Plaintiff in the
May 25, 2016 Order that no further extension of times would be granted. (Doc. #59).
Indeed, the Court previously granted Plaintiff over four months of extensions to file the
amended complaint and allowed Plaintiff over one month to file the second amended
complaint.

The Court does not find good cause to grant similar extensions in this

instance. However, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will allow Plaintiff
one final extension. Plaintiff has until on or before Friday, July 8, 2016, to file the second
amended complaint. Failure to meet this deadline will result in this action being dismissed
without further notice.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:

3

1. Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff is of Motion Dismissed, of ‘Order’ did not Know Facts In”
(Doc. #58), which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration, is
DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s “Motion Extension 2nd Amended, Me Today Paid Lawyer For Him To
2. (EJ) Filed Exhibited Facts, Asks Motion to Examine EXH’s + Pre Files” (Doc.
#60), which the Court construes as a motion for extension of time, is GRANTED
in part. Plaintiff has until on or before Friday, July 8, 2016, to file the second
amended complaint. Failure to meet this deadline will result in this action being
dismissed without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, this 27th day of June, 2016.

Copies: All Parties of Record

4