Johnston v. Anti-Defamation League, et al

Filing 59

ORDER. Defendants' time-sensitive motion (Dkt. 58) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 2) is DENIED as moot and for failure to comply with the Local Rules. Plaintiff may renew his motion if warranted. The evidentiary hearing set for December 11, 2024, is CANCELLED at this time and may be rescheduled if a renewed motion is filed. The November 25, 2024 deadline for exchanging exhibit and witness lists for the hearing is TERMINATED. Signed by Judge Julie S. Sneed on 11/22/2024. (AJL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
RICK JOHNSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:24-cv-1465-JSS-EJK

ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE,
JONATHAN GREENBLATT, BNAI
BRITH INTERNATIONAL, DANIEL
S. MARIASCHIN, HOWARD KOHR,
and AIPAC THE AMERICAN
ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
Defendants have filed a Time-Sensitive Motion to Deny as Moot Plaintiff’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Cancel Evidentiary Hearing. (Dkt. 58.) They
represent that Plaintiff’s position on the time-sensitive motion is unknown because
although they “attempted to confer with [him] in a good-faith effort to resolve th[e]
motion,” he “refused to have a telephone call with” them. (Id. at 8.) The court
presumes that Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, opposes the motion, but it advises Plaintiff
to confer with Defendants in good faith as required under Middle District of Florida
Local Rule 3.01(g). Upon consideration, for the reasons outlined below, the court
grants Defendants’ time-sensitive motion.
“District courts have unquestionable authority to control their own dockets.”

Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc., 750 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks omitted). “This authority includes ‘broad discretion in deciding how best to
manage the cases before them.’” Id. (quoting Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123
F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997)). Accordingly, courts have “broad discretion over
the management of pre[]trial activities, including discovery and scheduling.” Johnson
v. Bd. of Regents, 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001).
“[A]ny motion . . . for . . . a preliminary . . . injunction must be based upon a
cause of action . . . .” Alabama v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 424 F.3d 1117, 1127 (11th
Cir. 2005). In other words, “injunctive relief must relate to the relief requested in the
[operative] complaint.” Puello v. Mendez, No. 5:20-cv-198-Oc-34PRL, 2020 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 124122, at *4 (M.D. Fla. June 15, 2020), report and recommendation adopted by
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124070, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 15, 2020). “An amended
pleading supersedes the former pleading[.]” Dresdner Bank AG v. M/V Olympia Voyager,
463 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2006).
Although courts “give liberal construction” to documents filed by pro se
plaintiffs, Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007), pro se plaintiffs are
still “required . . . to conform to procedural rules,” Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304
(11th Cir. 2002). See Cummings v. Dep’t of Corr., 757 F.3d 1228, 1234 n.10 (11th Cir.
2014) (“The right of self-representation does not exempt a party from compliance with
relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” (quoting Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592,
593 (5th Cir. 1981))). Under the Local Rules, a motion for a preliminary injunction

-2-

must comply with rules governing temporary restraining orders. See M.D. Fla. Loc.
R. 6.02(a)(1). Accordingly, a motion for a preliminary injunction must include,
among other things, “a precise and verified explanation of the amount and form of the
required security.” See id.; M.D. Fla. Loc. R. 6.01(a)(4).
Defendants contend that the court should deny Plaintiff’s motion for
preliminary injunction as moot because the motion is based on his defamation claim,
which has been dropped from his amended complaint. (Dkt. 58 at 3–6; see Dkt. 2 at
12 (“Plaintiff . . . seeks a preliminary injunction against . . . Defendants[] to prevent
ongoing and irreparable harm resulting from their coordinated defamatory
campaign.”); compare Dkt. 1 at 139–40 (suing for violations of constitutional rights, for
defamation, and for invasion of privacy), with Dkt. 57 at 144–47 (suing for violations
of constitutional rights and for invasion of privacy).) The court agrees. See Alabama,
424 F.3d at 1127; Puello, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124122, at *4; Dresdner Bank, 463 F.3d
at 1215. The court also denies Plaintiff’s motion because it fails to include, for
example, “a precise and verified explanation of the amount and form of the required
security.” See M.D. Fla. Loc. R. 6.01(a)(4), 6.02(a)(1). (See Dkt. 2.) See Loren, 309
F.3d at 1304.
Given the denial of Plaintiff’s motion, the court exercises its “broad discretion
over the management of pre[]trial activities” to cancel the evidentiary hearing on the
motion and to terminate the associated deadline for exhibit and witness lists. See
Johnson, 263 F.3d at 1269.
Accordingly:
-3-

1. Defendants’ time-sensitive motion (Dkt. 58) is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 2) is DENIED as moot and
for failure to comply with the Local Rules. Plaintiff may renew his motion if
warranted.
3. The evidentiary hearing set for December 11, 2024, is CANCELLED at this
time and may be rescheduled if a renewed motion is filed.
4. The November 25, 2024 deadline for exchanging exhibit and witness lists for
the hearing is TERMINATED.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on November 22, 2024.

Copies furnished to:
Unrepresented Parties
Counsel of Record

-4-