Partners Insight, LLC v. Gill

M.D. Florida

Partners Insight, LLC v. Gill

DecidedApril 3, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-00739

StatusUnknown

This text of Partners Insight, LLC v. Gill (Partners Insight, LLC v. Gill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Partners Insight, LLC v. Gill, (M.D. Fla. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

PARTNERS INSIGHT, LLC and GULF COAST OPTOMETRY, P.A.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 2:22-cv-739-SPC-KCD

JENNIFER GILL, STEVEN GILL, EYETASTIC SERVICES, LLC and EYETASTIC RECRUITING, LLC,

Defendants. / ORDER1 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Strike (Doc. 83). This Motion is procedurally barred at this stage in litigation and fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Motion. Courts must liberally construe pro se filings and hold them to less stringent standards than papers drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But pro se litigants must still comply with procedural rules applicable to ordinary civil litigation. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

1 Disclaimer: Papers hyperlinked to CM/ECF may be subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or their services or products, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is not responsible for a hyperlink’s functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. First, Defendants filed this Motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). But Defendants have already answered the complaint. (Doc. 63). So Defendants’ Motion is procedurally barred at this stage of litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Additionally, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss does not comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). Defendants say they have “communicated the Motion to Dismiss with the Plaintiffs and will assume they will oppose this motion.” (Doc. 83 at 1). Local Rule 3.01(g) requires Defendants—upon filing a motion—to: (1) certify that the Defendants have conferred with the opposing party, (2) state whether the parties agree on the resolution of all or part of the motion, and (8) if the motion is opposed, explain the means by which the conference occurred. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Strike (Doc. 83) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 3, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

PARTNERS INSIGHT, LLC and GULF COAST OPTOMETRY, P.A.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 2:22-cv-739-SPC-KCD

JENNIFER GILL, STEVEN GILL, EYETASTIC SERVICES, LLC and EYETASTIC RECRUITING, LLC,

Defendants. / ORDER1 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Strike (Doc. 83). This Motion is procedurally barred at this stage in litigation and fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Motion. Courts must liberally construe pro se filings and hold them to less stringent standards than papers drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But pro se litigants must still comply with procedural rules applicable to ordinary civil litigation. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

1 Disclaimer: Papers hyperlinked to CM/ECF may be subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or their services or products, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is not responsible for a hyperlink’s functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. First, Defendants filed this Motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). But Defendants have already answered the complaint. (Doc. 63). So Defendants’ Motion is procedurally barred at this stage of litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Additionally, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss does not comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). Defendants say they have “communicated the Motion to Dismiss with the Plaintiffs and will assume they will oppose this motion.” (Doc. 83 at 1). Local Rule 3.01(g) requires Defendants—upon filing a motion—to: (1) certify that the Defendants have conferred with the opposing party, (2) state whether the parties agree on the resolution of all or part of the motion, and (8) if the motion is opposed, explain the means by which the conference occurred. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Strike (Doc. 83) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 3, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Partners Insight, LLC v. Gill, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/partners-insight-llc-v-gill-flmd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack