United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
DERETHA MILLER, TAMBITHA BLANKS and WILLIE BLANKS, individually, and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated Plaintiffs,
THE CITY OF FORT MYERS, RANDALL P. HENDERSON, JR. and SAEED KAZEMI, Defendants.
POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants'
Dual Summary Judgment Motions (Doc. 118). Defendants opposes
the Motion. (Doc. 120).
jointly filed two Motions for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 115;
116). The Middle District not only frowns on filing multiple
summary judgment motions without leave, the Local Rules
prohibit it. See M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(a); 3.01(d). The
Case Management Scheduling Order echoes the Local Rule. (Doc.
35 at 6 (“A motion for summary judgment shall include
[all requirements] . . . in a single document not to exceed
25 pages.”). Courts here interpret that Rule to
prohibit filing multiple motions absent leave. E.g.,
Benhassine v. Star Transp. Mgmt., Inc., No.
6:12-cv-1508-Orl-37GJK, 2013 WL 12164716, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla.
Oct. 29, 2013); Se. Metals Mfg. Co. v. Fla. Metal Prods.,
Inc., No. 3:09-cv-1250-J-25TEM, 2011 WL 833260, at *1
(M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2011). Multiple summary judgment motions
are not a matter of right, so a party must seek leave before
filing them. E.g., Fernandez v. Bankers
Nat'l Life Ins., 906 F.2d 559, 569 (11th Cir. 1990);
Essex Ins. v. Foley, 827 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1329 n.2
(S.D. Ala. 2011). And if multiple motions are filed without
leave, striking them may be proper. McKenzie-Wharton v.
United Airlines, Inc., No. 8:15-cv-114-17MAP, 2016 WL
5346948, at *7-8 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2016).
Plaintiffs are correct that the Court could strike both
Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court will accept them,
nevertheless. This case is complex, and the typical page
limit is likely not enough to address all the issues. So
while Defendants should have sought leave to file separate
motions, that request may have been granted. At a minimum,
Defendants should have requested additional pages for a
single motion, which would have been granted. In either
situation, the parties would be in essentially the same
position as now with these two pending Motions. And waiting
for all the briefing on those motions would add unnecessary
time and expense only to end up at the same place. To
expedite the disposition of summary judgment, therefore, the
Court will accept the Motions (Docs. 115; 116). But out of
fairness to Plaintiffs, the Court extends the deadline for
both Plaintiffs' responses to fourteen days from today.
To be clear, Plaintiffs must respond to each summary judgment
motion; and each response should follow the normal page limit
(twenty pages each) or request additional pages, if
it is now
1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Dual
Summary Judgment Motions (Doc. 118) is
2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
Defendants' Summary Judgment Motions Pending Ruling on
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Dual Summary
Judgment Motions (Doc. 119) is DENIED as
3. Plaintiffs' must FILE responses to
Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on RCRA
(Doc. 115) and Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on Plaintiffs' Individual State-Law Claims (Doc.
116) on or before October 23, 2019.
 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF
may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience.
Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are
subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other
websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or
guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no
agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other
site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
 In the future, the Court will not be
as lenient on this issue because the Local Rules and Middle
District caselaw are clear. However, as explained, under the
circumstances the Court accepts these ...