Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota’s reply brief in support of their motion to strike plaintiff’s motions to compel, supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from plaintiff
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota’s reply brief in support of their motion to strike plaintiff’s motions to compel, supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from plaintiff

on

  • 299 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
299
Views on SlideShare
299
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota’s reply brief in support of their motion to strike plaintiff’s motions to compel, supplemental motions and motion to stay discovery from plaintiff Document Transcript

  • 1. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2011 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU, Plaintiff, vs. DISMAS CHARITIES, INC., ANA GISPERT, DEREK THOMAS and ADAMS LESHOTA Defendants. _________________________________________/ DEFENDANTS DISMAS CHARTIES, INC., ANA GISPERT, DEREK THOMAS AND ADAMS LESHOTA’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL, SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY FROM PLAINTIFF Defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and Lashanda Adams, incorrectly identified as Adams Leshota (collectively “Defendants”) by and through their undersigned counsel, file their Reply Brief in Support of their Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel, Supplemental Motions and Motion to Stay Discovery from Plaintiff and state as follows: 1. Plaintiff, a former Federal Inmate, has filed a vague and confusing lawsuit against his Community Correction Center/Half Way House, Dismas, and three of its employees, Gispert, Thomas and Lashanda Adams. The Complaint contains 50 paragraphs of “factual allegations” filed by a laundry list of four alleged Federal Theories of Recovery and six alleged state law theories of recovery. However, the Plaintiff cannot maintain any State or Federal cause of action against any defendant. The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit which has been briefed and pending ruling since June 5, 2011. Defendants believe that the disposition of
  • 2. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2011 Page 2 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON that Motion will bring and end to this lawsuit and the need for discovery and ruling on the Plaintiffs’ discovery motions. 2. Plaintiff filed four separate Motions and Supplemental Motions regarding Defendants’ discovery response. (See Docket Numbers 53, 58, 60 and 61).The filing of these motions has required the Defendants to respond to all motions while their motion to dismiss has been pending since June, 2011. This has resulted in significant cost and time to Defendants and their counsel. 3. The Plaintiff, in filing these discovery Motions, has violated the Order Setting Trial Date, Pretrial Deadlines and Referral to Magistrate, docket number 44. The Discovery Procedures for Magistrate Simonton, section C, No Written Motions, specifically states that: No written discovery motions, including motions to compel and motions for protective order shall be filed unless requested by Magistrate Judge Simonton. It is the intent of this procedure to minimize the necessity of Motions. 4. Despite the Court’s order, the Plaintiff continues to file discovery motions to compel even though the Magistrate has not requested a motion to compel. Defendants filed a Motion to Strike the Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel, as well as a Motion to Stay the Plaintiff from filing additional harassing discovery pending ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 5. In response to Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiff filed a Response Brief. However, the Plaintiff’s Response Brief fails to properly refute the Defendants’ Motion, which demonstrates that Plaintiff’s discovery Motions, violated the Order Setting Trial Date, Pretrial Deadlines and Referral to Magistrate, docket number 44, Discovery Procedures for Magistrate Simonton, section C. Since Plaintiff cannot prove that Magistrate Simonton has requested four discovery Motions, the Defendants’ Motion must be granted. As the Plaintiff has improperly 2
  • 3. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2011 Page 3 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON filed discovery motions absent any request for a motion from the Magistrate Judge, the Plaintiffs Motions (Docket numbers 53, 58, 60 and 61) must be stricken. 6. In his Response Brief, the Plaintiff fails to address the points raised in Defendants’ Motion. Instead, the Plaintiff improperly attempts to use his Brief as a forum to argue his case (Response Brief, p. 3-5). The Plaintiff also improperly makes personal attacks against defense counsel. (Response Brief, p. 2-3, paragraphs 8 and 9). The Plaintiff also improperly includes confidential settlement discussions between defense counsel and the pro se Plaintiff in his Motion. (Response Brief, p. 3, paragraph 9). As these allegations and the majority of the Plaintiff’s Response Brief have nothing to do with Defendants’ Motion to Quash and Stay, Defendants will not be responding to these irrelevant accusations and incorrect remarks. 7. Since the Plaintiff has failed to properly rebut the Defendants’ Motion, the Motion to Quash and Stay must be granted. 3
  • 4. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2011 Page 4 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON WHEREFORE, Defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and Lashanda Adams, incorrectly identified as Adams Leshota respectfully request that Defendants’ Motion be granted and that the Court grant any further relief it deems appropriate, including sanctions against the Plaintiff. EISINGER, BROWN, LEWIS, FRANKEL, & CHAIET, P.A. Attorneys for Defendants 4000 Hollywood Boulevard Suite 265-South Hollywood, FL 33021 (954) 894-8000 (954) 894-8015 Fax BY: /S/ David S. Chaiet____________ DAVID S. CHAIET, ESQUIRE FBN: 963798 4
  • 5. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2011 Page 5 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 24th day of October, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. __/s/ David S. Chaiet_______________ DAVID S. CHAIET, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 963798 5
  • 6. Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2011 Page 6 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON SERVICE LIST Traian Bujduveanu v. Dismas Charities, Inc., et al. Case No..: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Traian Bujduveanu Pro Se Plaintiff 5601 W. Broward Blvd. Plantation, FL 33317 Tel: (954) 316-3828 Email: orionav@msn.com 6