Torrey v. Marion County School Board et al
Filing
68
ORDER denying without prejudice 55 Motion for Sanctions; granting 57 Motion for Leave to File; granting 58 Motion to extend time; granting 60 Motion to extend time; granting 66 Motion to extend time. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 2/4/2014. (JWM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
CAROLYN TORREY, for herself and for
J.T., her minor child
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 5:12-cv-662-Oc-10PRL
MARION COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
JAMES A. YANCEY, WILLIAM
HALDIN, BEVERLY MORRIS, JOHN
MCCOLLUM, GEORGE DON
RAYMOND, DIANA GREENE and RON
CRAWFORD
Defendants.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court for consideration of several pending motions filed by
the parties. While acting pro se, Plaintiff initiated this case by filing a Complaint on December
6, 2012. (Doc. 1). Subsequently, proceeding with counsel, Plaintiff requested and was granted
leave to file the Second Amended Complaint, stating claims for civil rights violations and
retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, and related claims.
(Doc. 37).
Defendants have filed a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Doc. 55). Therein, Defendants argue that the Second Amended Complaint fails to
allege precise facts showing how each Defendant (either individually or collectively) violated
relevant statutory provisions, whether Plaintiff is seeking relief against each individual
Defendant in his or her individual or official capacity, and fails to allege facts showing how
Plaintiff and her son have been harmed. In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File
the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 57), intended to address the Defendants’ concerns as raised
in their Motion for Sanctions. Although Plaintiff’s motion recites that Defendants object to the
motion for leave to amend, Defendants have failed to file a response in opposition.
A motion for leave to amend is governed by Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which provides that leave to amend pleadings “shall be freely given when justice so
requires.”
See also Spanish Broadcasting System of Fla., Inc. v. Clear Channel
Communications, Inc., 376 F.3d 1065, 1077 (11th Cir.2004)(“leave to amend must be granted
absent a specific, significant reason for denial”).
Accordingly, upon due consideration, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File the Third
Amended Complaint (Doc. 57) is GRANTED,1 and counsel for Plaintiff is directed to file the
Third Amended Complaint with the Court’s CM/ECF system. Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions
(Doc. 55) is therefore DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate the
pending Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Docs. 39 and 40) as moot.
Also pending are Plaintiff’s motions (Docs. 58 and 60) for extensions of time to produce
Rule 26 expert reports disclosures, and Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to serve
expert witness reports. (Doc. 66). Plaintiff requested until January 21, 2014 within which to
serve her expert disclosures.
Plaintiff’s motions (Doc. 58 and 60) are GRANTED, and
Plaintiff’s disclosures produced on or before January 21, 2014 shall be considered timely.
1
The Court notes that the filing of the Third Amended Complaint will have no impact on the
Rule 35 mental examination of Plaintiff. The same claims relevant to the mental examination,
namely, Plaintiff’s claims of extreme emotional distress, physical injury, and loss of business
opportunity as a result of Defendants’ actions, are also raised in the Third Amended Complaint.
(Doc. 57-1, ¶ 53).
-2-
Defendan motion (Doc. 66) is GRANTED and Defen
nts’
D,
ndants shall h
have until F
February 28, 2014
within which to serve their exper disclosures
e
rt
s.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Flo
D
O
orida on Feb
bruary 4, 201
14.
Copies fu
urnished to:
Counsel of Record
sented Partie
es
Unrepres
-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?