Robinson et al v. Doe et al
| Anita Robinson and Albert M. Robinson |
| Jane Doe, Jane Barbara Robinson and Section 23 Property Owners Associations, Inc. |
| 2:2012cv00675 |
| December 17, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Ft. Myers Office |
| Charlotte |
| Sheri Polster Chappell |
| John E. Steele |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
113
OPINION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 112 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. The Court's September 2, 2014 108 Order is modified to reflect that Plaintiffs' claim for intentional infliction of emotional distr ess is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter an amended judgment reflecting that the federal law claims in 50 Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 10/20/2014. (MAW)
|
|
Filing
108
OPINION and ORDER accepting and adopting 99 Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation; overruling 100 Plaintiffs' Objection; denying 94 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint; denying 96 Defendants' Motion to Str ike Motion for Leave to File Current Amended Complaint and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice; granting 53 57 79 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint; and denying 103 Defendants' Motion for Enti tlement to Attorneys' Fees. Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, terminate all pending motions and deadlines as moot, and close the file.Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 9/2/2014. (MAW)
|
|
Filing
93
ORDER GRANTING 80 Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint and Renewed Request that this Honorable Court Dismiss this Case With Prejudice Pursuant to Local Rule 4.07 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) to the extent that Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint is STRICKEN. The Clerk is directed to note on the docket that Doc. 78 is stricken; GRANTING 85 Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash Subpoena Directed to Section 23 Property Owner's Association and Carlson & Soforth; GRANTING 85 Motion to Quash; GRANTING 87 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Rule 26 Initial Disclosures to the extent that the Court will stay the requirement that the parties engage in a cas e management conference until the Court determines whether Plaintiffs will be granted leave to amend. Plaintiffs shall have up to and including June 6, 2014 to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 5/27/2014. (BLW)
|
|
Filing
25
ORDER. The Clerk of Court is directed to send two (2) copies of Marshal Form 285 and Summons to Plaintiffs for service upon Defendants Joseph Harris and Karen Perry. Plaintiff shall complete and mail the forms to the Clerk of Court within fifteen [ 15] days of the date of this Order. As Plaintiffs are proceeding IFP, the Clerk upon receipt shall provide the completed forms to the United States Marshal. Upon receipt of the completed forms, the United States Marshal is directed to serve them upon all Defendants without cost to the Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 5/10/2013. (LMF)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
