UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

LUCAS SEBASTIAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:25-cv-337-PGB-LHP

ALLEN TEMIZ and STEPHEN DELEONARDIS,

Defendants

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant Temiz’s Rule 11 Motion for Failure to Comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). Doc. No. 13. Defendant responds in opposition. Doc. No. 14. On review, the motion is due to be denied. First, the motion fails to comply with the Local Rules, including Local Rules 3.01(a) and 3.01(g), and Plaintiff fails to cite any legal authority in support of the requested relief. See also Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. 1989) (pro se litigants are “subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”). Second, assuming Plaintiff proceeds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the motion is procedurally improper, as a motion to strike is only properly directed to pleadings, which the motion for sanctions is not. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); see also Weiss v. PPG Indus.,

(M.D. Fla. 1993) (“A motion is not a pleading, and thus a motion to strike a motion is not proper under 12(f).”). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED. However, given that Plaintiff did not otherwise file a response to Defendant’s motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 10), the Court will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to do so. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant’s motion (Doc. No. 10) on or before June 13, 2025. Failure to timely respond will result in the Court treating the motion as unopposed. Local Rule 3.01(c). DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 29, 2025.

LESLIE 3 AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties