Opinion
Case No. 3:09-cv-189-J-32TEM.
March 31, 2010
ORDER
Pending before the Court two motions, neither of which have not been responded to. On December 29, 2010, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint, primarily because the amended complaint was indecipherably pleaded. (Doc. 35.) Plaintiff was given the opportunity to re-plead his complaint in accordance with the rules of procedure, by March 12, 2010. (Docs. 35, 36.) Rather than file a Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff filed a Motion To Stay the proceedings. (Doc. 37.) Upon review of the file, it is hereby
ORDERED:
I. Plaintiff's Motion To Stay
See pro se pro se
It is unclear from plaintiff's motion, whether the proceedings referred to are parallel to this action; initiated by plaintiff or some other entity; involve the same issues as plaintiff has attempted to allege in the first two complaints filed in this case; or have any possibility of resolution in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion To Stay (Doc. 37) is DENIED. See Ortega Trujillo v. Conover Co. Commc'ns, Inc., 221 F.3d 1262, 1264-65 (11th Cir. 2000) (vacating stay of civil proceedings as being "immoderate;" length of stay was indefinite and reasonable justification was not provided); CTI-Container Leasing Corp. v. Uiterwyk Corp., 685 F.2d 1284, 1289-90 (11th Cir. 1982) (vacating portion of stay as "immoderate of an indefinite duration").
II. Defendants' Motion To Set Aside Clerk's Default
Defendants, Smith, Hiatt Diaz, P.A. And/Or Robert A. Smith, Jr.'s Motion To Vacate Clerk's Default Or, Alternatively, Motion To Set Aside Clerk's Default (Doc. 38) is TERMINATED AS MOOT. As is reflected on the docket of this case, the Clerk's Entry Of Default as to Smith, Hiatt Diaz, P. Robert A. Smith, and MERS (Doc. 32) was set aside by the Court's Order dated December 29, 2009. (Doc. 35; see also Doc. 32 (Clerk's docket entry).)
III. Amending Complaint
In its Order dated February 11, 2010, the Court stated that the plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint no later than March 12, 2010. To date, the plaintiff has not done so. Inasmuch as the pro se plaintiff may have believed that his motion to stay somehow forestalled the requirements of the Court's Order, the Court will permit plaintiff one more opportunity to file and properly serve a Second Amended Complaint. (See Docs. 35, 36.) Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint no later than April 28, 2010, and properly serve the remaining defendants (see Doc. 35 at 12; Doc. 36) by May 12, 2010. Failure by the plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint by April 28, 2010 will result in DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE of this case. Defendants' responses to plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint are due no later than June 9, 2010. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida.