Kopperud v. Mabry et al

Filing 131

OPINION AND ORDER that, on or before September 8, 2015, the parties shall file a Consolidated Pretrial Order that adheres to the Court's Standing Order Regarding Civil Litigation and this District's Local Rule 16.4. The Court, according to its regular case management procedures, will consider when to set this case for trial after it reviews the Consolidated Pretrial Order that is required to be submitted by the parties on or before September 8, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defe ndant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Order 126 is DENIED AS MOOT and Plaintiff's Motion for Status Conference 130 is DENIED. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 8/28/2015. (anc) Modified on 8/28/2015 in order to update docket text (anc).

certain witnesses. On August 1, 2013, Mabry and Butler filed their Motion for
Summary Judgment [51].
On December 18, 2013, the Court granted [80] summary judgment in favor
of Butler on all counts and dismissed Butler from this action, and granted summary
judgment in favor of Mabry on some, but not all, of Plaintiff’s counts. The Court
also granted the Discovery Motion, extending the discovery deadline to
February 14, 2014, for the limited purpose of conducting additional depositions
related to Plaintiff’s false arrest claim against Mabry. On January 16, 2014, Mabry
appealed [82] the Court’s denial of summary judgment in his favor, and on
July 28, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit entered its judgment affirming [97] (the “July
28th Opinion) the Court’s January 16, 2014, decision, finding that:
In the light of this record and the then-clearly-established law, no
reasonable officer in the same circumstances and possessing Deputy
Mabry’s knowledge could have believed that probable cause existed
to arrest Plaintiff for criminal trespass, when and where Plaintiff was
arrested.
(July 28th Opinion ¶ 7).1
On September 4, 2014, Plaintiff and Mabry (together, the “Parties”) filed
their Consent Motion to Stay Case [101] (“Stay Motion”), requesting a stay of this
action until October 4, 2014, to allow the Parties to conduct settlement
1

Kopperud v. Mabry, 573 F. App’x 828, 831-32 (11th Cir. 2014).
2

negotiations. On September 9, 2014, the Court granted the Stay Motion. On
October 9, 2014, the Court stayed the case for an additional thirty (30) days, or
through November 3, 2014.
On December 12, 2014, the Court ordered [109] the Parties to file on or
before December 19, 2014, their proposed consolidated pretrial order. On
December 15, 2014, the Court, at the request of the Parties, held a status
conference by telephone. During the status conference, counsel for Plaintiff
requested additional time to conduct the depositions the Court had previously
agreed to allow prior to Mabry’s appeal. Counsel informed the Court that they
intended to file a motion to withdraw as counsel.
On December 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave to Depose Fact
Witnesses Before Trial [111] (“Deposition Motion”) and Motion to Modify This
Court’s Order Regarding the Submission of the Parties’ Proposed Pre-Trial Order
[112] (“Scheduling Motion”), requesting that the Court permit Plaintiff to depose
Rockie Smith, James Gates, Mark Shaw, and Kimarie Bell, and any new witness
named by Mabry. Plaintiff requested that he be permitted to submit proposed dates
for these depositions within two (2) days after the resolution of Counsel’s
to-be-filed motion to withdraw. On December 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed his
Scheduling Motion, requesting that the Court order that no pretrial report is due
3

until after Counsel’s to-be-filed motion to withdraw is resolved. The Deposition
Motion and Scheduling Motion were unopposed.
On December 16, 2014, Counsel for Defendant filed their Motion to
Withdraw [114].2
On December 17, 2014, the Court granted [115] Plaintiff’s Deposition
Motion and Scheduling Motion, and ordered that Plaintiff must submit proposed
dates for the depositions of Rockie Smith, James Gates, Mark Shaw, and Kimarie
Bell within ten (10) days after the Court’s order on the Motion to Withdraw, and
required the Parties to file their proposed consolidated pretrial order within
two (2) weeks after the depositions are concluded.
On May 4, 2015, the Court granted [114] Counsel for Defendant’s Motion to
Withdraw, ordered that the depositions must be concluded on or before June 30,
2015, and that the parties file their proposed consolidated pretrial order within two
(2) weeks after the depositions were concluded.3
On June 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Motion for Extension of Time to File
Pretrial Order [124] citing personal issues resulting from an automobile accident.
2

On December 29, 2014, Mabry filed his Pro Se Response in Opposition
[117] to the Motion to Withdraw. On January 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Response
in Opposition [118] to the Motion to Withdraw. On January 16, 2015, Counsel
filed its Reply [119], and, on March 31, 2015, Counsel filed its Notice to the Court
of Compliance with Bar Rules [120].
3
Attorney Clarence R. Johnson appeared for Defendant on May 15, 2015.
4

On the same day, the Court granted the motion extending the time for the parties to
file the pretrial order to August 4, 2015. On July 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second
Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Order [125] citing continued
personal issues related to the same automobile accident. The Court granted the
motion on the same day, extending the time for the parties to file the pretrial order
through August 18, 2015. On August 19, 2015, Defendant filed his Motion for
Extension of Time to File Pretrial Order.
On August 21, 2015, the parties filed a Proposed Pretrial Order [129] (the
“Proposed Pretrial Order”). The Proposed Pretrial Order, as filed, does not meet
the requirements of Local Rule 16.4 for this District or Paragraph 16 of the Court’s
Standing Order Regarding Civil Litigation.4
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before September 8, 2015, the
parties shall file a Consolidated Pretrial Order that adheres to the Court’s Standing
Order Regarding Civil Litigation and this District’s Local Rule 16.4. The Court,
according to its regular case management procedures, will consider when to set this

4

http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Standing_Order_Re_Civil_
Litigation.pdf. The Pretrial Order that was filed was essentially two separate,
unconsolidated submissions.
5

case for trial after it reviews the Consolidated Pretrial Order that is required to be
submitted by the parties on or before September 8, 2015.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Extension of
Time to File Pretrial Order [126] is DENIED AS MOOT and Plaintiff’s Motion
for Status Conference [130] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 28th day of August, 2015.

_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6