Opinion
2:21-cv-200-SPC-MRM
09-08-2021
CASTILLA ROOFING, INC. A/A/O JOHN CUCKLER AND MARJORIE CUCKLER, Plaintiff, v. INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink's availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order.
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter comes before the Court on review of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 33). The Court strikes the filing because it does not comply with the Court's procedure on motions for summary judgment. As stated on the undersigned's website and in the Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 18), a motion for summary judgment must include a memorandum of law in support and a specifically captioned section titled, “Statement of Material Facts, ” in a single document not to exceed 25 pages. Because Defendant's Motion does not follow this procedure, the Court will strike it. There are other problems with the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Statement of Disputed Facts (Doc. 32) cites S.D. Fla. Local Rule 56.1; the Motion for Summary Judgment refers to “this Court” as the Southern District of Florida (Doc. 33 at 7); and the Motion for Summary Judgment reads like a motion to dismiss: “As such, CRI cannot demonstrate a viable cause of action upon which relief can be granted.” (Doc. 33 at 8). Any refiled motion should fix these problems.
The Court takes this opportunity to reiterate another point from the undersigned's website and the Case Management and Scheduling Order-only one motion for summary judgment may be filed by a party absent leave of Court.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33) is STRICKEN.
DONE and ORDERED.