Hudson v. City of Riviera Beach

Filing 36

ORDER denying 35 Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Please see Order for details. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 4/5/2013. (bon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 12-80870-CIV-ROSENBAUM/SELTZER
MICHAEL A. HUDSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 35]. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and is required to file
documents with the Clerk’s office, was required to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss by
Friday, March 29, 2013. See D.E. 33. Plaintiff filed his response on Monday, April 1, 2013. D.E.
34. On the basis of this three-day tardiness (arguably one-day since the Clerk’s office is closed on
weekends), Defendants seek to strike Plaintiff’s response brief. D.E. 35.
While Defendants are correct that deadlines are not merely aspirational and that procedural
defaults are not excused merely because the defaulting litigant is appearing pro se, id. ¶ 4, it is well
established that the Court disfavors remedies that circumvent the “strong preference that cases be
heard on the merits.” Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985). Although Plaintiff’s
minor delay is unexplained, Defendants have offered no hint—and the Court can discern none—that
they have been unduly prejudiced in any way. Accordingly, striking Plaintiff’s response would be
a drastic remedy that would not serve either the ends of justice or judicial economy.
Of course, the Court cautions Plaintiff that its leniency goes only so far. See Young v. City

of Palm Bay, Fla., 358 F.3d 859, 864 (11th Cir. 2004). In the future, Plaintiff should be mindful of
the Court’s deadlines and procedural rules and should adhere to them or seek the leave of the Court
in advance before departing from them. Continued late filings or other procedural missteps may
result in various sanctions, including, but not limited to, dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint if
warranted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 35] is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 5th day of April 2013.

ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
copies to:
The Honorable Barry S. Seltzer
Counsel of record
Michael A. Hudson, pro se
180 NE 123rd Street
Miami, FL 33161

-2-