Hunt v. Hillsborough County et al

Filing 19

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 17 Order to show cause filed by Dennis Hunt. (Rodems, Ryan)

Hunt v. Hillsborough County et al

Doc. 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

DENNIS HUNT, Plaintiff, Case No. 8:07-cv-1168-T-30TBM vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTED

LAW LIBRARY BOARD, a Board created by Hillsborough County, Florida; NORMA J. WISE, in her official capacity as Director of the James J. Lunsford Law Library, and individually; and, DAVID L. PILVER, individually, Defendants. _______________________________/

UNOPPOSED RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Plaintiff Dennis Hunt, pursuant to this Court's entered July 14, 2008 requiring him to show cause "why this action should not be dismissed for failure to file a Case Management Report pursuant to Local Rule 3.05," states: 1. On July 14, 2008, within twelve hours of the entry of the Order to Show Cause

(Dkt 17), Plaintiff's counsel ensured that the Case Management Report (Dkt 18) was filed. 2. Immediately upon learning of the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff's counsel

prepared a proposed Case Management Report, forwarded it to Defendants' counsel and, after

Dockets.Justia.com

exchanging thoughts and ideas and modifying it accordingly, filed it at 10:08 p.m. on July 14, 2008. 3. Plaintiff filed this action pro se on or about July 3, 2007. On July 6, 2007, the

Notice of Designation Under Local Rule 3.05 (Dkt 3) was issued almost seven months before Plaintiff retained the undersigned on or about February 1, 2008. On February 26, 2008, this Court entered an Order (Dkt 8) adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt 7) that Plaintiff's pro se Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. The February 26, 2008 Order required Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within 20 days. 4. On March 13, 2008, an Amended Complaint (Dkt 9) was filed. Many of the

parties Plaintiff initially sued were not named as parties in the Amended Complaint. Thereafter, the Amended Complaint was served approximately April 1, 2008. Thereafter, two of the parties moved to dismiss (Dkt 12) and subsequently the third party answered (Dkt 16) the Amended Complaint. 5. The failure to file a Case Management Report was due to a miscommunication

and misunderstanding on Plaintiff's counsel's part. The undersigned was unaware until the Order to Show Cause was entered that the Notice of Designation had been entered. The undersigned diligently resolved the oversight by filing a Case Management Report as soon as possible. 6. response. DATED this 14th day of July, 2008. Defendant's counsel stated that I may represent that he does not oppose this

2

/s/ Ryan Christopher Rodems RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 947652 Attorney for Plaintiff BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 14, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: Stephen M. Todd, Esquire. I further certify that I mailed the foregoing document and the notice of electronic filing by first-class mail to the following non-CM/ECF participants: N/A. s/Ryan Christopher Rodems RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE