Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adams’ statement of disputed facts in response and opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adams’ statement of disputed facts in response and opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

on

  • 180 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
180
Views on SlideShare
180
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

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 lashanda adams’ statement of disputed facts in response and opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adams’ statement of disputed facts in response and opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Document Transcript

  • Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 88-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/27/2011 Page 1 of 7 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 LASHANDA ADAMS’ STATEMENT OF DISPUTED FACTS IN RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and Lashanda Adams, incorrectly identified as Adams Leshota, (collectively “Defendants”) by and through their undersigned counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 7.5, file their Statement of Disputed Facts in Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as follows: The disputed facts are supported by the affidavit of Ana Gispert, Director of Dismas. STATEMENT OF DISPUTED FACTS 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. The Plaintiff was still under the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons for Discipline. (Docket 83-2; Affidavit of Ana Gispert, p. 35-36 and Exhibits 1-5)
  • Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 88-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/27/2011 Page 2 of 7 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON 4. Denied. The Plaintiff acknowledged on two occasions, in writing, receiving the Rules and Regulations of Dismas as well as conditions of release to Community Corrections. (Docket 83-2; Affidavit of Ana Gispert, p 7-15. and Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5) 5. Even though the Plaintiff provided his driver’s license and proof of insurance, as per the agreed upon conditions of his release, Plaintiff was not allowed to drive without consent of the Bureau of Prisons or Dismas. Plaintiff never received permission to drive and drove without permission. (Docket 83-2; Affidavit of Ana Gispert, p 7-15 and 19. and Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5) 6. Plaintiff provided medical records and his work and confinement were accord with his condition, including home confinement and no work. (Docket 83-2; Affidavit of Ana Gispert, p. 6) 7. Denied. The remarks in this paragraph are inadmissible hearsay. 8. Denied. The Plaintiff, as per the agreed upon conditions of his release, was only permitted to attend religious services within a five mile radius of his confinement. (Docket 83-2; Affidavit of Ana Gispert, p. 20 and Exhibit 7) 9. Denied. The Plaintiff has not provided any support these conclusory allegations including names, dates, times and methods of alleged harassment of Plaintiff or other residents. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted that Plaintiff operated a vehicle without authorization or consent. (Docket 83-2; Affidavit of Ana Gispert, p 7-15 and 19 and Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5) 12. Denied. The Rules and Regulations, which the Plaintiff acknowledged receiving clearly prohibit driving without Dismas written authorization and possession of cell phones. The 2
  • Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 88-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/27/2011 Page 3 of 7 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON Rules and Regulations, which the Plaintiff acknowledged receiving clearly permit and authorize searches and seizure of contraband, as the Plaintiff is still under Bureau of Prison custody and control serving a prison sentence. As Plaintiff was driving a car without permission and possessed a cell phone, he violated the terms of his CCC agreement. (Docket 83-2; Affidavit of Ana Gispert, p 7-31 and Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8) 13. Denied. The Rules and Regulations, which the Plaintiff acknowledged receiving clearly prohibit driving without Dismas written authorization and possession of cell phones. The Rules and Regulations, which the Plaintiff acknowledged receiving clearly permit and authorize searches and seizure of contraband, as the Plaintiff is still under Bureau of Prison custody and control serving a prison sentence. As Plaintiff was driving a car without permission and possessed a cell phone, he violated the terms of his CCC agreement. (Docket 83-2; Affidavit of Ana Gispert, p 7-31 and Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8) 14. Admitted that the Plaintiff received violation notices and due process through the Federal Bureau of Prison United States Bureau of Prison Center Discipline Committee. The Rules and Regulations, which the Plaintiff acknowledged receiving clearly prohibit driving without Dismas written authorization and possession of cell phones. The Rules and Regulations, which the Plaintiff acknowledged receiving clearly permit and authorize searches and seizure of contraband, as the Plaintiff is still under Bureau of Prison custody and control serving a prison sentence. As Plaintiff was driving a car without permission and possessed a cell phone, he violated the terms of his CCC agreement. (Docket 83-2; Affidavit of Ana Gispert, p 7-34 and Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10) 3
  • Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 88-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/27/2011 Page 4 of 7 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON 15. Admitted that the Bureau of Prisons sent the U.S. Marshall Service to Dismas to return the Plaintiff to a correction facility because of Plaintiff’s actions. (Docket 83-2; Affidavit of Ana Gispert, p 32-26 and Exhibits 10 and 11) 16. Denied because the Bureau of Prisons, not the Defendants, sent the U.S. Marshall Service to Dismas to return the Plaintiff to a correction facility because of Plaintiff’s actions. (Docket 83-2; Affidavit of Ana Gispert, p 32-36 and Exhibits 10 and 11) 17. Denied as hearsay. Plaintiff was transferred by the Bureau of Prisons into the custody of FDC Miami, where a subsequent hearing was held by the Bureau of Prisons concerning his possession of a cell phone and driving a vehicle without authorization. He was found guilty of these offenses at the hearing and required to serve the remaining 68 day balance of his initial sentence at FDC Miami. A copy of the Plaintiff’s United States Bureau of Prison Center Discipline Committee Report is attached to Docket 83-2; Affidavit of Ana Gispert, p 32- 36 and Exhibits 10 and 11) 18. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiff was released. 19. Denied. Defendants have properly responded to all discovery and objected where appropriate. This allegation is conclusory in nature and provides no names, dates or facts in support of the allegations. 4
  • Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 88-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/27/2011 Page 5 of 7 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON Respectfully submitted, 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 5
  • Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 88-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/27/2011 Page 6 of 7 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 27th day of December, 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 6
  • Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 88-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/27/2011 Page 7 of 7 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 7