Summary
This United States District Court order addresses a pro se plaintiff's combined opposition to a motion to dismiss and motion to strike. The court finds the filing deficient for exceeding local rule page limits, improperly including an affirmative request for relief, and lacking required counsel certification. Consequently, the court strikes the filing and grants the plaintiff until August 5, 2025, to submit a procedurally compliant response to the pending motion to dismiss.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's combined opposition complies with Local Rule 3.01(b) page‑limit requirement
- Whether the request to strike a motion can be made within a response under Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b) and Local Rule 3.01(g)
Holdings
- The combined opposition exceeds the twenty‑page limit and therefore must be stricken.
- A request to strike a filing is not proper when included in a response to a motion and the filing also failed to satisfy Local Rule 3.01(g).
Key quotations
“Under Local Rule 3.01(b), “[a] party responding to a motion or brief may file a legal memorandum no longer than twenty pages inclusive of all parts.” The Response greatly exceeds this page limit.”
“A request for affirmative relief, such as a request to strike a filing, is not properly made when simply included in a response to a motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b).”
Factual background
Plaintiff Charles Force, pro se, filed a Combined Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike that exceeded the page limit and failed to comply with Local Rules 3.01(b) and 3.01(g).
Procedural history
The case is at the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. No prior appellate history is noted.
Remand instructions
Force may file a response to the motion to dismiss that complies with all applicable rules on or before August 5, 2025.