Corcho v. Bank of America, N.A.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: July 8, 2025
• Docket: 6:25-cv-01082
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

YESENIA CORCHO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:25-cv-1082-JSS-DCI

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Defendant. ___________________________________/ ORDER Plaintiff, Yesenia Corcho, proceeding pro se, has filed a renewed motion to proceed by written submission, requesting that she be excused from “the requirement of in-person appearances[] due to financial hardship and accessibility limitations.” (Dkt. 6 at 1.) While Plaintiff cites caselaw in support of her motion, the cases cited are either irrelevant, see Campbell-El v. Dist. of Columbia, 881 F. Supp. 42, 43 (D.D.C. 1995), or cannot be located by the court, see United States v. Mullins, 202 F.3d 281, 285 (10th Cir. 2000); Moody v. Simmons, No. 1:14-cv-02273, 2015 WL 1802350 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2025). (Dkt. 6-1 at 2.) While the court has, as Plaintiff notes, authority to manage the procedural aspects of its cases, (Dkt. 6-1 at 1), her motion is due to be denied because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the court’s authority is properly exercised in granting her motion, (see Dkts. 6, 6-1). The court will not, at this case’s outset, grant Plaintiff’s blanket request to conduct the entirety of this litigation by written submission. However, Plaintiff appears willing to appear at hearings virtually. (See Dkt. 6-1 at 2.) If and when a hearing is calendared in this matter, Plaintiff may move to conduct that hearing remotely or to appear virtually, though the court makes no representation as to how it will rule on such a motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. 6) is DENIED. ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on July 8, 2025.

SP. whee JUFIE S. SNEED □ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Party

_2-