United States v. Gamechange Solar Corporation

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: July 25, 2025
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00612
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. KCI CUSTOMS BROKERS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:22-cv-612-MMH-PDB

GAMECHANGE SOLAR CORPORATION, etc.,

Defendants. ______________________________/

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Relator’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 55; Response), filed July 21, 2025. In the Response, in addition to asserting that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is due to be denied, Relator alternatively requests leave to amend its complaint in the event the Court finds that its allegations are inadequate. See Response at 20. As an initial matter, the Court notes that a request for affirmative relief, such as a request for leave to amend a pleading, is not properly made when simply included in a response to a motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b); see also Chabad Chayil, Inc. v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty, 48 F.4th 1222, 1236 (11th Cir. 2022) (“[W]here a request for leave to file an amended complaint simply is imbedded within an opposition memorandum, the issue has not been raised properly.” (quoting Newton v. Duke Energy Fla., LLC, 895 F.3d 1270, 1277 (11th Cir. 2018)));

Rosenberg v. Gould, 554 F.3d 962, 965 (11th Cir. 2009). Moreover, even if it were proper to include this request in the Response, the request is otherwise due to be denied for failure to comply with Rules 3.01(a) and 3.01(g) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Florida (Local Rule(s)). Local Rule 3.01(a) requires a memorandum of legal authority in support of a request from the Court. See Local Rule 3.01(a). Local Rule 3.01(g) requires certification that the moving party has conferred with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issue raised by the

motion and advising the Court whether opposing counsel agrees to the relief requested. See Local Rule 3.01(g). In addition to these deficiencies under the Local Rules, the request in the Response also fails to satisfy the requirement that “[a] motion for leave to amend should either set forth the substance of the

proposed amendment or attach a copy of the proposed amendment.” Long v. Satz, 181 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 1999); see also McGinley v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 438 F. App’x 754, 757 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of leave to amend where plaintiff did not set forth the

substance of the proposed amendment); U.S. ex rel. Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F.3d 1350, 1861-62 (11th Cir. 2006) (same).! Thus, the Court will not entertain Relator’s request for relief included in the Response. Relator is advised that, if it wishes to pursue such relief, it is required to file an appropriate motion in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: To the extent that Relator requests affirmative relief from the Court, Relator’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 55) is DENIED without prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 25th day of July, 2025.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD United States District Judge

1¢33 Copies to: Counsel of Record ! The Court does not rely on unpublished opinions as binding precedent; however, they may be cited in this Order when the Court finds them persuasive on a particular point. See McNamara v. GEICO, 30 F.4th 1055, 1060-61 (11th Cir. 2022); see generally Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 11th Cir. R. 36-2 (Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority.”).