Rodriguez et al v. United States of America
| Fredis Posadas and Tania Rodriguez |
| Borinquen Health Care Center, Inc., Dr. Pierre Bernard Eugene and United States Of America |
| 1:2021cv20717 |
| February 22, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Jonathan Goodman |
| Robert N Scola |
| Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1442 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 9, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 20 NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of #19 Response to Order to Show Cause by Fredis Posadas, Tania Rodriguez (mc) |
| Filing 19 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 14 Order, by Tania Rodriguez, Fredis Posadas. (mc) |
Filing 18
ORDER of DISMISSAL re #15 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; Closing Case. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. on 4/7/2021. See attached document for full details. (ls)
|
| Filing 17 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Cassidy Loutos, Esq. for / by Fredis Posadas, Tania Rodriguez. Responses due by 4/20/2021 (pes) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of #15 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Fredis Posadas, Tania Rodriguez (pes) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice by Fredis Posadas, Tania Rodriguez. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order) (pes) |
|
Filing 14
PAPERLESS ORDER: This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiffs' response to the Court's order to respond and two orders to show cause (ECF Nos. 9, 10, 12), which was filed by the Defendant on the Plaintiffs' behalf as a professional courtesy. In the Plaintiffs' response to the orders, counsel for the Plaintiffs states that she was granted admission to the Southern District of Florida on January 19, 2021 and "had delays and issues in creating and navigating the CMF/ECF [sic] portal." (ECF No. 13-1, at 1.) Confusingly, the Plaintiffs' attorney states that she sought admission when this matter was removed, yet fails to explain her delay in obtaining the necessary credentials. Indeed, the Defendant removed this matter on February 22, 2021, over a month after counsel for the Plaintiffs states she was admitted to practice before this Court. Even more troubling than counsel's delay in satisfying the requirements to practice in this Court, the Plaintiffs' counsel provides no explanation for failing to timely respond to the Court's three orders, explaining only that with respect to the Court's March 22, 2021 show cause order, she "was in Tallahassee advocating... for a bill on behalf of her client and was not actively monitoring email." (ECF No. 13-1, at 1.) This suggests that counsel was aware she was violating orders of the Court, as the Court's March 22 order was the first of two show cause orders the Court has entered in this matter after the Plaintiffs failed to respond to the Court's order to respond. To rectify this issue, Plaintiffs' counsel states she will take additional CM/ECF training and will make sure that all future communications are timely. The Defendant's notice of filing, to which the Plaintiffs' filing is attached, is more informative than the Plaintiffs' response to the Court's show cause orders. In its notice, the Defendant states that despite being admitted to the Southern District of Florida, Plaintiffs' counsel "lacks access to the CM/ECF portal." It is inexplicable that Plaintiffs' counsel has been admitted to practice in the Southern District of Florida for over two months, but has failed to obtain her CM/ECF credentials, where the rules of the Court plainly state that "[e]lectronic filing is mandatory for all attorneys admitted to practice in the Southern District of Florida." CM/ECF Administrative Procedures Section 2A; see also Clerk's Office Operating Procedures ("All members of the Federal Bar of the Southern District of Florida must complete the online CM/ECF registration process... [e]lectronic filing is mandatory...."); see also S.D. Fla. L. R. 5.1 ("All documents required to be served shall be filed in compliance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures...."). Accordingly, it appears that Plaintiffs' counsel was admitted to this Court, but failed to take all necessary steps allowing her to competently represent clients in any proceedings in this district in violation of the Court's rules. In consideration of the fact that the Plaintiffs' counsel is undergoing CM/ECF training on April 8, and presumably will receive her CM/ECF credentials after that date, the Court orders the Plaintiffs' counsel to show cause by April 9, 2021 why the Court should not refer Plaintiffs' counsel to the Committee on Attorney Admissions, Peer Review, and Attorney Grievance to participate in the Committee's "remedial program designed to raise the competence of an attorney who is not performing adequately." Separately, the Court notes a single sentence of Plaintiffs' counsel's response to the Court's orders to show cause in which the Plaintiffs "respectfully request[] time to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss." (ECF No. 13-1, at 1.) To the extent this is an attempt by the Plaintiffs to move for an extension of time, that request is denied as it is procedurally improper for several reasons. First, the request fails to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) requiring conferral. Plaintiffs' counsel was on notice of this requirement, as the Court previously denied the Defendant's motion to substitute parties for the same reason, stating in detail the requirements and rationale behind that rule. (See ECF No. 7.) Second, the request fails to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) and Section 3I(6) of the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. These provisions require that proposed orders "shall be filed initially as an attachment to a motion... in PDF format as required for electronic filings" as well as submitted "by e-mail in Word format" to the Court. Even if the request did not suffer from these deficiencies, either of which are sufficient to deny the request, the Plaintiffs fail to state how much of an extension of time is necessary, leaving the Court guessing at the relief sought. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. (sda)
|
| Filing 13 NOTICE by United States Of America (Attachments: #1 Correspondence from Plaintiff's Counsel Regarding the Court's Order [DE 12]) (Brown, Latoya) |
|
Filing 12
PAPERLESS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: This matter is before the Court upon an independent review of the record. On March 17, 2021, the Defendant in this matter filed a renewed motion to substitute party. In its motion, the Defendant stated it had made several attempts over a period of almost three weeks to confer with the Plaintiffs on their position with respect to the relief sought by the Defendant, but the Plaintiffs never informed the Defendant whether or not they opposed the relief sought. In light of this, on March 17, 2021, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to inform the Court by March 19, 2021 of their position and if they were opposed, the basis for their opposition. The Plaintiffs failed to abide by the Court's order. On March 22, 2021, the Court granted the Defendant's motion and ordered the Plaintiffs, by March 24, 2021, to show cause for their failure to abide by Court's March 17, 2021 order. Once again, the Plaintiffs ignored the deadlines set out by the Court. In light of these violations, by March 26, 2021, the Plaintiffs must show cause for their repeated failure to obey the Court's orders in this matter. Should the Plaintiff fail to abide by this deadline, the Court will dismiss this matter without prejudice and without further notice for want of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. (sda)
|
| Filing 11 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction #1 Notice of Removal (State Court Complaint),, by United States Of America. Responses due by 4/7/2021 (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Declaration of Meredith Torres, #2 Text of Proposed Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss)(Brown, Latoya) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER, granting #8 Motion to Substitute Party. United States Of America added. Borinquen Health Care Center, Inc. and Pierre Bernard Eugene terminated. Re: #8 Amended MOTION to Substitute Party filed by Borinquen Health Care Center, Inc., Pierre Bernard Eugene. Plaintiffs Show Cause Response due by 3/24/2021. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 3/22/2021. See attached document for full details. (mee)
|
|
Filing 9
PAPERLESS ORDER TO RESPOND: This matter is before the Court upon the Defendants' renewed motion to substitute party. #8 . The Court denied the Defendants' initial motion as it failed to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) with respect to the issue of substitution of parties. In their renewed motion, the Defendants state that they have followed up with the Plaintiffs numerous times to receive the Plaintiffs' position on the Defendants' motion, but as of the time of filing "Plaintiffs have not informed the undersigned of their position." (ECF No. 8, at 3.) So the Court may resolve this narrow issue efficiently, the Plaintiffs are ordered to respond to the Defendants' motion by 3 p.m. on March 19, 2021, stating whether or not they are opposed to the relief sought. If they are opposed to the relief sought, the Plaintiffs' response must include a discussion of any authorities supporting their opposition. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. (sda)
|
| Filing 8 Amended MOTION to Substitute Party by Borinquen Health Care Center, Inc., Pierre Bernard Eugene. Responses due by 3/31/2021 (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order Granting the United States' Amended Motion for Substitution of Party)(Brown, Latoya) |
|
Filing 7
PAPERLESS ORDER: This matter is before the Court upon the Defendants' motion to substitute party and for extension of time. #6 . In its motion, the Defendants state that the Plaintiffs do not oppose the Defendants' request for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' complaint. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to the extent it seeks to extend time to respond to the Plaintiffs' complaint. The response is now due March 24, 2021. The Defendants' motion, however, fails to state whether the Plaintiffs agree with the Defendants' request to replace the United States as the sole defendant in this matter in the place of the currently named Defendants. Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice this aspect of the Defendants' motion as the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) which requires an attorney filing a motion in a civil case to first confer with all parties or non-parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in a good-faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues raised in the motion. The filing attorney must then include in the motion a statement explaining to the Court that (1) all or some of the issues raised in the motion are unopposed; (2) counsel conferred but could not agree on all or some of the issues raised in the motion; or (3) counsel diligently attempted to confer but was unable to reach the opposing counsel. S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3). "The purpose of the rule is to ensure judicial economy and prevent courts from considering issues the parties could agree on independently, and to ascertain whether the Court need wait for a response from the opposing party before deciding the motion." Aguilar v. United Floor Crew, Inc. , No. 14-CIV-61605, 2014 WL 6751663, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2014) (Bloom, J.). The Defendants are free to refile their motion to substitute party provided it includes the required certificate of conferral. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. (sda)
|
| Filing 6 MOTION to Substitute Party ( Responses due by 3/11/2021), MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer to Complaint by Borinquen Health Care Center, Inc., Pierre Bernard Eugene. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting the United States' Motion for Substitution of Party and for Extension of Time)(Brown, Latoya) |
|
Filing 5
MAGISTRATE JUDGE GOODMAN'S DISCOVERY PROCEDURES ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 2/24/2021. See attached document for full details. (fbn)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER REQUIRING DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND ORDER REFERRING DISCOVERY MATTERS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE. REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman for all discovery matters. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 2/23/2021. See attached document for full details. (mee)
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Compliance with Title 28, United States Code, Section 1446(d) by Borinquen Health Care Center, Inc., Pierre Bernard Eugene re #1 Notice of Removal (State Court Complaint),, filed by Borinquen Health Care Center, Inc., Pierre Bernard Eugene (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Notice to State Court Removal) (Brown, Latoya) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (mee) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (STATE COURT COMPLAINT - Complaint) Filing fee $402.00. USA Filer - No Filing Fee Required,no answer/affirmative defenses filed by Pierre Bernard Eugene, Borinquen Health Care Center, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Complaint Cover Sheet, #3 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - State Court Complaint and Summons, #4 Certification Certification of US Attorney, #5 Exhibit State Court Order)(Brown, Latoya)Text Modified on 2/23/2021 (mee). |
Access additional case information on PACER
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 Southern 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.
