Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Luis v. Zang

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

March 30, 2018

JAVIER LUIS, Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH ZANG, et al., Defendants.

          Dlott, J.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Stephanie K. Bowman, United States Magistrate Judge

         I. Background

         The above-captioned case, initiated by Plaintiff pro se and in forma pauperis more than six years ago in Florida, [1] has a lengthy procedural history that the undersigned finds no need to recount in any detail here. Briefly however, after Plaintiff's case was dismissed on June 20, 2014, the case was revived and remanded to this Court by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. See Luis v. Zang, 833 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2016). After remand, this Court denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to add multiple new defendants and claims, while allowing Plaintiff to amend only to clarify the factual and legal support for his claims against Awareness Technologies, Inc. (“Awareness”) consistent with remand. (See generally Docs. 196, 210).

         Following remand, Plaintiff Luis and Defendant Awareness agreed to complete initial disclosures by November 30, 2016, with Plaintiff to complete expert disclosures by July 10, 2017 and Defendant to make corresponding expert disclosures by September 8, 2017. The Court directed the parties to complete fact discovery by May 1, 2017, and to complete expert discovery by November 30, 2017. The Court repeatedly indicated that any dispositive motions were due by December 29, 2017. (See Docs. 181, 194). On September 20, 2017, the Court reiterated the importance of adhering to the pretrial deadlines:

Given the number of years this case has been pending and the conclusion of fact discovery in May, the Court forewarns both parties that the November 30 deadline for the completion of all expert discovery and the December 29, 2017 dispositive motion deadline WILL NOT BE FURTHER EXTENDED absent an extraordinarily strong showing of good cause

(Doc. 211 at 5-6, ¶3). On December 28, 2017, in accordance with the Court's calendar orders, Defendant Awareness filed a motion for summary judgment.

         On December 31, 2017, Plaintiff Luis also filed a motion. Although Plaintiff's motion was captioned as a multi-part motion seeking “leave to extend time to file dispositive motion or in the alternative, for summary judgment, and to file cross-motion for summary judgment; [and] renewed motion for appointment of counsel, ” the motion was docketed solely as a motion for an extension of time to file any response to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 214). On January 4, 2018, the undersigned granted Plaintiff's motion only to the extent that the Court permitted Plaintiff a brief period of additional time to respond to the pending motion for summary judgment. The Court wrote:

While Plaintiff offers little basis for any extension of time other than the alleged complexity of the issues presented, the Court nevertheless will allow Plaintiff a limited extension of time, until February 15, 2018, in which to file any response to the pending motion for summary judgment.

(Doc. 218 at 3-4, footnote omitted).

         In all other respects, the undersigned denied Plaintiff's multi-part motion, including his last request for the appointment of counsel. As to that portion of the motion, the undersigned's last Order stated:

As Plaintiff insists on refiling the same motion, the undersigned will reiterate the pertinent language of the Court's last order:
The undersigned thoroughly explained the reasons for denying Plaintiff's prior 22-page motion for the appointment of counsel, in the 15-page Memorandum Opinion and Order filed on February 1, 2017. (Doc. 188). Plaintiff's reference to what he views as the current agenda of President Trump's “dangerous presidency” notwithstanding, nothing has changed in this case that alters the Court's prior analysis.
(Doc. 211 at 4). The Court forewarns Plaintiff that filing any additional motions seeking the appointment of counsel may be STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.