Washington v. AT&T Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida·Decided January 3, 2025·No. 6:24-cv-02103·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ANTHONY WAYNE SWAIN WASHINGTON, JR and AW WASHINGTON CONSULTING LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-2103-PGB-LHP

AT&T INC., AT&T ORLANDO, AT&T CORPORATE OFFICE and AT&T STORE,

Defendants

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF (Doc. No. 12) FILED: December 16, 2024

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice. By the above-styled, untitled motion, it is not entirely clear what relief Plaintiff1 seeks, but Plaintiff references a “writ of replevin, motion to proceed and a motion to discover to the Middle District Court of Florida for claims against AT&T

Inc.” Doc. No. 12, at 1. Upon review, the motion (Doc. No. 12) fails to contain a memorandum of law as required by Local Rule 3.01(a) – while Plaintiff lists several rules and statutes, he does not explain how any of them authorize any requested relief. Moreover, insofar as Plaintiff is seeking discovery from Defendant AT&T

Inc., no Defendant has yet been served or appeared in this case, and as such no case management conference has yet occurred and discovery has not yet opened; therefore, any attempts to obtain discovery are premature. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d).

Accordingly, the motion (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is advised that although he proceeds pro se in this case, pro se litigants are “subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989), cert.

denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Failures to comply with applicable Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may result in the imposition of sanctions.

1 Given that AW Washington Consulting LLC cannot proceed in this case without counsel, see Doc. Nos. 3, 15, the Court construes the motion as brought by pro se Plaintiff Anthony Wayne Swain Washington, Jr. alone. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 3, 2025.

ayn □□□□ LESLIE AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

-3-

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

Washington v. AT&T Inc., (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Washington v. AT&T Inc. (Washington v. AT&T Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

David Richard Moon v. Lanson Newsome, Warden
863 F.2d 835 (Eleventh Circuit, 1989)