Opinion
Case No. 3:04-cv-1344-J-20HTS.
March 9, 2006
ORDER
Before the Court are numerous motions filed by the qui tam Plaintiff, which are decided as follows:
1. Plaintiffs Motion to Include Discussion of Sanctions and/or Other Corrective Action (Doc. No. 165, filed November 3, 2005) is DENIED.
2. Second, Plaintiff filed a Motion entitled "Plaintiffs Motion/Legal Authority to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, and Requests for Orlando Improvement Corporation To Produce and for Sanctions. (Doc. No. 169, filed November 14, 2005). However, in the Motion, Plaintiff actually seeks the entry of default judgment. This Motion (Doc. No. 169) is DENIED.
3. Third, Plaintiffs Motion to Modify or Clarify Order of the Magistrate (Doc. No. 171, filed November 14, 2005) is DENIED. The Magistrate's Order (Doc. No. 164) was clear on its face and was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
4. Next, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Hearing by an Impartial Judge. (Doc. No. 179, filed December 2, 2005). This Motion is DENIED AS MOOT as the case has been reassigned to the undersigned Judge.
5. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Set Aside the Order of December 19, 2005 (Doc. No. 210, filed January 3, 2006), which is DENIED.
6. Next, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions because some Defendants had not withdrawn certain documents. (Doc. No. 213, filed January 9, 2006). This Motion is DENIED.
7. Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Set Aside Denial of Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 217, filed January 23, 2006) which is also DENIED.
8. Plaintiff again filed a Motion to Set Aside an Order of a Magistrate. (Doc. No. 229, filed February 21, 2006). This Motion is likewise DENIED as the Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. No. 226) is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
9. Finally, Plaintiff has moved to disqualify the mediator. (Doc. No. 235, filed March 1, 2006). This Motion is also DENIED.
DONE AND ENTERED.