HUSSAIN
v.
STADELMAN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted the plaintiffs' ex parte motion to extend the deadline for initial disclosures, despite the motion's deficiencies.
Pro se plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion to extend the deadline for initial disclosures. The motion lacked a memorandum of legal authority and an ad…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ex Parte Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
(And Direction to Clerk of Court)
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: PLAINTIFFS’ EX-PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR INITIAL DISCLOSURES (Doc. No. 61) FILED: February 24, 2023
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, have filed an ex parte motion requesting an extension of the deadline for initial disclosures. Doc. No. 61. According to Plaintiff’s supplement to the motion, Defendants do not oppose. Doc. No. 61-1.
Upon review, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a) because it does not include a memorandum of legal authority in support. The motion also fails to adequately explain why it has been filed ex parte. Despite these deficiencies, the Court will extend the deadline for Plaintiffs’
initial disclosures through March 3, 2023. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to remove the ex parte designation from the motion (Doc. No. 61) as well as this Order. Plaintiffs are cautioned that all future filings made in this case must comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules, and Court Orders. See also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (stating that pro se litigants are
“subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”). Future non-compliant filings may be stricken or summarily denied without further notice. In addition, Plaintiffs shall not file any further motions in this case ex parte, without citation to legal authority demonstrating the propriety of that procedure. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 24, 2023.
ay [...]
LESLIE AN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties