Howard v. Brightway Insurance, Inc.
ORDERED: To the extent that he requests affirmative relief from the Court, Plaintiff's 18 Response in Opposition is DENIED without prejudice. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 11/16/2020. (MHM)
Case 3:20-cv-01020-MMH-JBT Document 19 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID 171
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 3:20-cv-1020-J-34JBT
BRIGHTWAY INSURANCE, INC.,
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff Talman Howard’s Response in
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18; Response), filed on November 13,
2020. In the Response, Plaintiff, in addition to asserting that Defendant’s motion to dismiss
is due to be denied, alternatively requests leave to amend his complaint in the event the
Court finds that his allegations are inadequate. See Response at 16. Preliminarily, the
Court notes that a request for affirmative relief, such as a request for leave to amend a
pleading, is not properly made when simply included in a response to a motion. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 7(b); see also Rosenberg v. Gould, 554 F.3d 962, 965 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Where
a request for leave to file an amended complaint simply is imbedded within an opposition
memorandum, the issue has not been raised properly.”) (quoting Posner v. Essex Ins. Co.,
178 F.3d 1209, 1222 (11th Cir. 1999)).
Moreover, even if it were proper to include this request in the Response, the request
is otherwise due to be denied for failure to comply with Local Rules 3.01(a) and 3.01(g),
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (Local Rule(s)). Local Rule 3.01(a)
Case 3:20-cv-01020-MMH-JBT Document 19 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID 172
requires a memorandum of legal authority in support of a request from the Court. See
Local Rule 3.01(a). Local Rule 3.01(g) requires certification that the moving party has
conferred with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issue raised by the
motion and advising the Court whether opposing counsel agrees to the relief requested.
See Local Rule 3.01(g). In addition to these deficiencies under the Local Rules, the request
in the Response also fails to satisfy the requirement that “[a] motion for leave to amend
should either set forth the substance of the proposed amendment or attach a copy of the
proposed amendment.” Long v. Satz, 181 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 1999); see also
McGinley v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 438 F. App’x 754, 757 (11th
Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of leave to amend where plaintiff did not set forth the substance
of the proposed amendment); United States ex. rel. Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F. 3d 1350,
1361-62 (11th Cir. 2006) (same). Thus, the Court will not entertain Plaintiff’s request for
relief included in the Response. Plaintiff is advised that, if he wishes to pursue such relief,
he is required to file an appropriate motion, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court.
To the extent that he requests affirmative relief from the Court, Plaintiff Talman
Howard’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) is DENIED
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 16th day of November, 2020.
Case 3:20-cv-01020-MMH-JBT Document 19 Filed 11/17/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID 173
Counsel of Record
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?