Court filing
Motion to Strike Local Defendants' Motions to Dismiss — Wall v. CDC (M.D. Fla.)
Filed March 1, 2022 in Wall v. CDC; one of 35 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando Division) |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2022-03-01 |
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando Division) · No. 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI · Doc. 246 · 2022-03-01 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION LUCAS WALL, : : Plaintiff, : Case No. 6:21-cv-975-PGB-DCI : v. : District Judge Paul Byron : CENTERS FOR DISEASE : Magistrate Judge Daniel Irick CONTROL & PREVENTION et al., : : Defendants. : PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE [232 & 233] LOCAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS COMES NOW plaintiff, pro se, and moves for an order striking the motions to dismiss filed Feb. 22 by the two Local Defendants in this case, the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (d/b/a “LYNX”) (Doc. 232) and the Greater Or- lando Aviation Authority (“GOAA”) (Doc. 233). These two defendants’ prior mo- tions to dismiss were denied by the Court in December and they may not take a second bite at the apple. They are required to file an answer to the Amended Com- plaint, as the Federal Defendants did. Doc. 234. GOAA submitted a nearly identical first motion to dismiss June 21, 2021. Doc. 49. As did LYNX on July 6. Doc. 82. The district judge denied those motions Dec. 18. Doc. 187. “Here, this Court has the power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts 17 and 18 under § 1367(a). These claims arise out of the same oper- Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 246 Filed 03/01/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 7012 2 ative nucleus of fact as the FTMM claims because they involve the same se- ries of events: Plaintiff’s inability to board his flight or ride the bus due to the enforcement of the FTMM by the TSA, the GOAA, and LYNX. Conse- quently, the resolution of these state law claims will involve the same or similar facts, witnesses, and evidence as the FTMM claims – indeed, Counts 17 and 18 rely on the legality of the FTMM, which will raise significant ques- tions of preemption. Thus, the Court retains jurisdiction for now, with the caveat that it will remain continuously mindful of whether relinquishment of supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate at every stage of the litigation.” Id. at 26-27 (emphasis original) (cleaned up). The Court’s Dec. 18 Order rejected the magistrate’s recommendation that all counts against LYNX and GOAA be dismissed and concluded in no uncertain terms “Defendant GOAA’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 49) is DENIED. Defendant LYNX’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 82) is DENIED.” Id. at 30. Notably the Court did not deny the motions to dismiss as moot due to its instruction that I must replead. The mo- tions were denied, period. They may not be made again. The Amended Complaint I filed Dec. 26 (Doc. 188) contains the exact same causes of action against the Local Defendants as the original Complaint (Doc. 1). Likewise the second motions to dismiss filed by LYNX and GOAA are copied al- most verbatim from the first motions to dismiss that the Court denied in Decem- ber. Under the “law of the case,” the Local Defendants may not make the exact same motions that were previously been denied by the district judge. Once they answer the Complaint, the Local Defendants will have the option to move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) or for summary judgment under Rule 56. But they may not resubmit a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) that’s already been denied. Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 246 Filed 03/01/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 7013 3 WHEREFORE, I request this Court issue an order granting me the following relief: The motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Central Florida Regional Transpor- tation Authority and Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (Docs. 232 & 233) are STRICKEN. The Local Defendants shall answer the Amended Complaint within seven days of the date of this Order. Local Rule 3.01(g) Certification I hereby certify that on Feb. 22, I conferred with Stephen Pezzi, counsel for the Federal Defendants. Mr. Pezzi said the Federal Defendants take no position on this motion. I hereby certify that on Feb 23, I conferred with David Wood, counsel for Defend- ant Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (d/b/a LYNX). Mr. Wood said LYNX opposes this motion. I hereby certify that on Feb. 22, I conferred with Sally Culley, counsel for Defend- ant Greater Orlando Aviation Authority. Ms. Culley said GOAA opposes this mo- tion. Respectfully submitted this 1st day of March 2022. Lucas Wall, plaintiff 435 10th St., NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: 202-351-1735 E-Mail: Lucas.Wall@yahoo.com Case 6:21-cv-00975-PGB-DCI Document 246 Filed 03/01/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 7014
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flmd.390847.246.0.pdf
- Size
- 165,182 bytes
- SHA-256
- 505b0729b780d6a3716385e6e1e95a24b670677b7a18ec7d5c4bcb1d595e6ec4
- Original
- archive.org