Case Activity (5378)

1. Order | Filed: June 17, 2026 | Entered: June 17, 2026 Pearson v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al

   Consumer Credit | Florida Southern

   - Order (PAPERLESS or pdf attached)

   PAPERLESS ORDER sua sponte limiting future motion practice and filings on the docket. In the exercise of the Court's inherent authority to manage its docket, and due to the disproportionate number of meritless filings submitted by Plaintiff in this action in a short period of time and the unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources consumed in adjudicating and reviewing such filings, Plaintiff is directed as follows. Except as authorized in this Order, Plaintiff shall not file any motion or submit any item on the docket unless Plaintiff first files a motion for leave to file the designated motion/filing and obtains the Court's approval to file the requested material. All proposed filings sought to be filed by Plaintiff shall be attached as exhibits to the motion for leave. This order shall not apply to any notices of appeal, any filings required by Local Rule 7.1(c)(1), or any motion to vacate or confirm an arbitration award. Any motion or item filed in violation of this Order will be stricken without further notice. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 6/17/2026. (nct)

2. Order | Filed: June 17, 2026 | Entered: June 17, 2026 Pearson v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al

   Consumer Credit | Florida Southern

   Order on Motion for Clarification

   PAPERLESS ORDER denying 65 Plaintiff's "Motion to Clarify or Amend." The Court denied in whole Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 64], which necessarily denied Plaintiff's request for certification for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Further, nothing in this case has presented "a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation," so as to warrant certification under § 1292(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Further, Plaintiff's insistence that the Court was required to consider his substantive arguments against arbitration despite his waiver of those arguments is, once again, rejected. Once a party waives an argument by failing to file a proper response, the Court is under no obligation to consider that argument and may grant the motion. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c)(1); see also Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. 259, 273 (2025) ("If a party neglects to raise, concedes, or waives an issue, a court generally has no obligation to consider it."); Jones v. Bank of Am., N.A., 564 F. App'x 432, 434 (11th Cir. 2014) ("[W]hen a party fails to respond to an argument or otherwise address a claim, the Court deems such argument or claim abandoned." (quotation omitted)). Finally, for completeness, the Court notes that it did consider the antecedent question of formation, explaining that Citibank attached both the Card Agreement itself and an unrebutted declaration attesting that the Card Agreement was the operative agreement between Plaintiff and Citibank [see ECF No. 61 p. 7 n.5]. The Court further noted that, even if considered, Plaintiff's conclusory arguments raised in his stricken response failed to disprove or rebut "the existence of" this Agreement [see ECF No. 61 p. 7 n.5]. The Motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 6/17/2026. (nct)

3. 5376 additional result(s)