# Kraft

> District Court, M.D. Florida · June 9, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11370934

## Case

- **Full name:** John Kraft, Kirk Allen, Alyssia Benford, and Edgar County Watchdogs, Inc. v. Bonnie Kurowski
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** June 9, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11370934

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION

JOHN KRAFT, KIRK ALLEN,
ALYSSIA BENFORD, and EDGAR
COUNTY WATCHDOGS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 5:25-cv-677-PGB-PRL

BONNIE KUROWSKI,

Defendant.

ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on pro se Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Quash
Service and Dismiss, or in the Alternative to Stay and Administratively Close (“First Motion
to Dismiss”) (Doc. 57) filed on February 24, 2026; Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure
to State a Claim Under Rule 12(b)(6) (“Second Motion to Dismiss”) (Doc. 58) filed on
February 24, 2026; Defendant’s Renewed Consolidated Motion to Dismiss Under Rule
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or in the Alternative for a More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e),
and to Strike Under Rule 12(f) (“Third Motion to Dismiss”) (Doc. 71) filed on March 3, 2026;
and Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or in the
Alternative for a More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e) (“Fourth Motion to Dismiss”)
(Doc. 85) filed on March 13, 2026. On May 22, 2026, Defendant filed a Renewed Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, Insufficient Service of Process, Failure to
State a Claim, Florida Anti-Slapp Protection, and Journalist Privilege Protection (“Fifth
Motion to Dismiss”). (Doc. 127).
In light of Defendant’s Fifth Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 127) filed on May 22, 2026, and
given that the Fifth Motion to Dismiss incorporates the same or substantially similar
arguments as Defendant’s four prior motions to dismiss, Defendant’s First Motion to Dismiss

(Doc. 57), Second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 58), Third Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 71), and
Fourth Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 85) are denied as moot. See, e.g., Harpo-Brown v. Intermark
Mgmt. Corp., No. CV 120-176, 2024 WL 115805, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 10, 2024) (“[B]ecause
[defendant’s] renewed motion to dismiss incorporates the same arguments as its first motion,

the Court will only consider [defendant’s] renewed motion, and [defendant’s] first motion to
dismiss . . . is DENIED AS MOOT.”); Tolbert v. Scruggs, No. 8:19-cv-754-T-60AAS, 2019
WL 5268811, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2019) (“Because [defendant] filed a renewed motion
to dismiss on September 20, 2019, the Court denies his June 26, 2019, motion as moot.”).
Defendant is cautioned that the Court will not consider duplicative motions or notices
requesting relief that has already been requested once. The Court’s Local Rules impose page

limitations on motions. See M.D. Fla. Local Rule 3.01(a), (b). Plaintiff may not skirt the
limitations by filing multiple documents that request the same relief. Accordingly, going
forward, the Court will strike any motion or notice that appears to be duplicative of a prior
filed motion or notice.
Despite proceeding pro se, Defendant is advised that she is required to comply with this
Court’s Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Plaintiff may obtain a copy of the Local Rules from the Court’s website
(http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov) or by visiting the Office of the Clerk of Court. Additionally,
resources and information related to proceeding in court without a lawyer, including a
handbook entitled “Guide for Proceeding Without a Lawyer,” can be located on the Court’s
website (http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/pro_se/default.htm). Defendant should also consult
the Middle District of Florida’s Civil Discovery Handbook for a general discussion of this
District’s discovery practices (http://www. □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1) Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Quash Service and Dismiss, or in the Alternative
to Stay and Administratively Close (Doc. 57) is DENIED as moot.
(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule 12(b)(6)
(Doc. 58) is DENIED as moot.
(3) Defendant’s Renewed Consolidated Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6), or in the Alternative for a More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e), and
to Strike Under Rule 12(f) (Doc. 71) is DENIED as moot.
(4) Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or in
the Alternative for a More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e) (Doc. 85) is
DENIED as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on June 9, 2026.
□□□
arenas
PHILIP R. LAMMENS
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11370934. Public record. Not legal advice.