AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

SCP DISTRIBUTORS LLC and SUPERIOR POOL PRODUCTS LLC, Plaintiffs, v. MAURO ZELAYA, Defendant

LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER

LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:

MOTION: DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME (Doc. No. 13)
FILED: November 1, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendant Mauro Zelaya, appearing pro se, moves for “30 days to further review my situation and make some decisions,” regarding whether or not to hire counsel. Doc. No. 13. Upon review, the motion fails to comply with the Local Rules. Specifically, the motion fails to contain a conferral certification as required by Local Rule 3.01(g). The motion also fails to include a memorandum of legal authority as required by Local Rule 3.01(a). From a review of the docket, it is also not entirely clear what precise deadlines Defendant is seeking to extend.

Accordingly, the Request for Additional Time (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed motion must fully comply with the Local Rules and state the precise relief sought.

Because Defendant, an individual, may proceed on his own behalf unless and until counsel appears, the Court directs Defendant's attention to the Court's website, http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov. On the Court's homepage, Defendant can find basic information and resources for parties who are proceeding without a lawyer in a civil case by clicking on the “For Litigants” tab and then selecting “Litigants without Lawyers.” Defendant is cautioned that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, or Court Orders may result in sanctions, up to and including default. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989) (a pro se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SCP Distribs. v. Zelaya
(Nov 1, 2024)