JABLONSKI v. MAZER

Case No. 2:17-cv-107-FtM-38CM.

EDWARD J. JABLONSKI, Plaintiff, v. JASON S. MAZER, MEGHAN C. MOORE, R. HUGH LUMPKIN, BRENTON N. VER PLOEG and VER PLOEG & LUMPKIN, P.A., Defendants.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract
Nature of Suit: 190 Contract : Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Edward J. Jablonski, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Jason S. Mazer, Defendant, represented by Michael A. Ponzoli , Kenny Nachwalter, PA & Richard H. Critchlow , Kenny Nachwalter, PA.

Meghan C. Moore, Defendant, represented by Michael A. Ponzoli , Kenny Nachwalter, PA & Richard H. Critchlow , Kenny Nachwalter, PA.

R. Hugh Lumpkin, Defendant, represented by Michael A. Ponzoli , Kenny Nachwalter, PA & Richard H. Critchlow , Kenny Nachwalter, PA.

Brenton N. Ver Ploeg, Defendant, represented by Michael A. Ponzoli , Kenny Nachwalter, PA & Richard H. Critchlow , Kenny Nachwalter, PA.

Ver Ploeg & Lumpkin, P.A., Defendant, represented by Michael A. Ponzoli , Kenny Nachwalter, PA & Richard H. Critchlow , Kenny Nachwalter, PA.


ORDER

CAROL MIRANDO, Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing (Doc. 36) filed on May 30, 2017 and Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 38) filed on June 6, 2017. Plaintiff's motion for a hearing appears to request a hearing on the merits of this case and his request for appointment of counsel. Doc. 36. His motion for extension asks for additional sixty (60) days to file an amended complaint. Doc. 38.

On March 22, 2017, United States District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that adequately pleads federal subject-matter jurisdiction on or before April 3, 2017. Doc. 24. Plaintiff requested two extensions of time, which the Court granted and allowed him until June 5, 2017 to file an amended complaint. Doc. 26, 28, 31, 33. Given the length of the extension, the Court noted in the Order (Doc. 33) that it "will not be inclined to grant additional extensions beyond that provided by this Order absent extenuating circumstances." Doc. 33 at 2.

Despite the two-month extension and the Court's clear directive, Plaintiff's motion for extension again seeks additional sixty (60) days to file an amended complaint on unclear grounds. Doc. 38. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and appears to allege that he has suffered a medical issue in April 2017, the Court will grant one FINAL extension of time to file an amended complaint. Doc. 36 at 2. As noted in the previous Order, Plaintiff's failure to comply with the extended deadline may result in dismissal of this case. Doc. 24 at 2.

Furthermore, the Court will deny as moot Plaintiff's motion for a hearing (Doc. 36) on the merits of this case and his request for appointment of counsel because the Court already denied his request for appointment of counsel on April 25, 2017, and there is no operative complaint in this matter. Doc. 33 at 2-4.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing (Doc. 36) is DENIED as moot.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 38) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff shall have up to and including July 12, 2017 to file an amended complaint pursuant to the Order (Doc. 24).

DONE and ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases