Defendants’ response brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgmentDocument Transcript
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/27/2011 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’ RESPONSE BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to this Court’s Scheduling Order, 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 Response Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law as follows: INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, a former Federal Inmate, filed a lawsuit against his residential reentry center, Dismas, and three of its employees, Gispert, Thomas, and Adams. The Complaint contains 50 paragraphs of unsupported allegations, four alleged federal theories of recovery, and six alleged state law theories of recovery—all arising from his violation of a Bureau of Prison’s condition to not drive an automobile or posses a cell phone, which caused him to be transferred from Dismas back to a federal prison.
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/27/2011 Page 2 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION Plaintiff was transferred to Dismas’ Dania facility as a transition point from federal prison system back to into the community. Dismas, as a residential reentry center, assists inmates in employment, counseling, and other matters to allow them to become productive, contributing individuals in their families and communities upon release. Due to health issues, Plaintiff, after approval from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, was transferred from Dismas’ Dania facility to home confinement subject to the terms and conditions of his initial entry into the facility as mandated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. These conditions included the Plaintiff’s agreement not to drive without the permission or consent of Dismas and not to possess contraband, including cell phones. When the Plaintiff drove to Dismas and was found to be in possession of a cell phone in the car, Dismas reported Plaintiff’s violations to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Federal Bureau of Prisons then had the United States Marshall’s Service return the Plaintiff to the Federal Detention Center-Miami, where he subsequently served out the last 68 days of his federal prison sentence after the Bureau of Prisons independently found Plaintiff guilty of the violations. As an inmate still under sentence, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, not the Defendants, made all decisions concerning his custodial placement. After his violations of rules while at Dismas’ facility, the BOP decided to remove him from the program and he was returned by the BOP (via the U.S. Marshall service) to a federal prison to serve out the remainder of his sentence. Plaintiff, therefore, fails to state a cause of action and all Defendants must be awarded summary judgment. 862734:1:LOUISVILLE 2
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/27/2011 Page 3 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON STATEMENT OF DISPUTED FACTS Defendants filed a separate Statement of Disputed Facts and Affidavit of Ana Gispert (Docket 83-2) which is incorporated as though fully set forth herein. ARGUMENT AND CITATION TO AUTHORITY 1. The Plaintiff cannot maintain any cause of action against any Defendant. In opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants, to avoid redundancy, incorporate their Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of Undisputed Facts and Affidavit of Ana Gispert (Docket 83, 83-1 and 83-2) as though fully set forth herein. Defendants have raised legal and factual positions that not only rebut Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, but proof that no genuine issue of fact exists and that the Defendants are entitled to Final Summary Judgment as a matter of law. 2. Since the Plaintiff has failed to appear for depositions, Defendants’ designated facts should be taken as established for purposes of all Motions for Summary Judgment. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failing to appear for depositions. (Docket 78). If this Court should not dismiss this cause of action, the remedy for Plaintiff’s failure to appear at his deposition should be to bar him from contesting the Defendants’ material statement of facts filed in both their motion for summary judgment and in response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Short of dismissal, this is an appropriate remedy because it addresses the core problem created by Plaintiff’s defiance. Because Defendants have not been allowed to test the factual merit of Plaintiff’s allegations, Plaintiff 862734:1:LOUISVILLE 3
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/27/2011 Page 4 of 6 CASE NO.: 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON himself should not be entitled to introduce these same allegations either in defense or support of summary judgment. 3. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is legally and factually insufficient. The Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment still lacks material facts. Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Facts contains hearsay and unsupported allegations. Since the Plaintiff’s Motion fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the Motion must be denied. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants would move this Court for an Order granting all Defendants Final Summary Judgment, denying Plaintiffs Motion for Final Summary Judgment. and any further relief the Court deems just and proper. 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 862734:1:LOUISVILLE 4
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/27/2011 Page 5 of 6 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 862734:1:LOUISVILLE 5
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/27/2011 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: email@example.com 862734:1:LOUISVILLE 6