Wolfe v. Emcare, Inc.

Filing 116

ORDER denying 93 Motion to Vacate ; denying 94 Motion for clarification; granting 101 Motion to Continue; denying 102 Motion to Vacate. As the motion to contiue is granted, this case is stayed as recited above up to and including January 27, 2015 only. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 12/9/2014. (SN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

TERENCE K. WOLFE,
Plaintiff,

vs.

CASE NO. 8:13-CIV-2308-T-EAK-TGW

EMCARE, INC.,
Defendant.
/

ORDER ON MOTIONS
This cause is before the Court on the following: Plaintiff’s motion to vacate
order (Doc. 93) and response (Doc. 105); Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (Doc. 94)
and response (Doc. 106); Plaintiff’s motion to continue (Doc. 101) and response (113);
and Plaintiff’s motion to vacate orders (Doc. 102) and response (Doc. 112). In the first
motion, the Plaintiff asks to this Court to vacate the order of the magistrate judge
entered August 19, 2014 (Doc. 61). The Court finds that the motion is not well-taken.
The Plaintiff’s motion on the whole is simply a complaint that he perceives the
magistrate judge treats his motions differently from those of the Defendant. The Court
finds no evidence of that in the record and does not find that the order at Document 61
should be vacated. This motion is denied.

The next motion is a motion to clarify an order entered on July 14, 2014. The
Plaintiff is unhappy that the Court denied his motion to drop some of his counts and
then have the case remanded. The Court agrees with the Defendant’s response on this
issue:
Plaintiff is not objecting to the Court allowing him to drop his federal claims.
Plaintiff is simply unhappy with the Court’s warning that if plaintiff does so, the
Court will exercise her discretion and retain jurisdiction of plaintiff’s state
claims. In other words, plaintiff is upset the Court will not allow him to start
over and try again in state court.
This motion will be denied because the discretion of this Court allows it to retain
jurisdiction of a case like this that had been pending in this court for almost a year
when the Plaintiff sought to remand to state court.
The Plaintiff also asks the Court to vacate the orders of the magistrate judge
docketed at Documents 80 and 81. As in the motions previously addressed here, the
Plaintiff demonstrates that he is simply not happy with the rulings of the magistrate
judge and objects to what appears to be a simple misstatment in the order, as it appears
that the magistrate judge did indeed consider the Plaintiff’s response and proposed
confidentiality order. The Court finds no basis for vacating the orders the Plaintiff
cites in this motion. This third motion is denied.
The final motion to be addressed in this order is the Plaintiff’s motion to
continue this case for ninety days. The Plaintiff asserts that he has personal issues that
preclude him from giving his case the attention it deserves. The Plaintiff wants all
activity to cease in this case for that length of time, which from the date the motion

was filed would be January 27, 2015.
The Court notes that, besides the motion for summary judgment pending before
the undersigned, there are three motions currently pending before the magistrate judge,
two filed by the Defendant and one by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has not responded
to the two filed by the Defendant. The Defendant objects to any continuance in this
case. The Court finds that the Plaintiff should be given some leeway in his prosecution
of this case but not for any extensive time period. The Court will stay this case for the
ninety day period, or until January 27, 2015, but no longer. The Plaintiff has up to and
including that date to respond to the pending motions to which he has not responded
but he and the Defendant are precluded from filing any new motions, unless approved
by the magistrate judge as an emergency filing, until that date. The undersigned and
the magistrate judge may take any ripe motions under consideration at the expiration of
this stay. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that motion to vacate order (Doc. 93); Plaintiff’s motion for

clarification (Doc. 94); and Plaintiff’s motion to vacate orders (Doc. 102) are denied.
The motion to continue (Doc. 101) is granted and this case is stayed as recited
above up to and including January 27, 2015 only.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 9th day of
December, 2014.

Copies to: All parties and counsel of record