View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!Introducing SlideShare for AndroidExplore all your favorite topics in the SlideShare appGet the SlideShare app to Save for Later — even offline
View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new Android app!View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2012 Page 1 of 5 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’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and Lashanda Adams, (collectively “Defendants”) by and through their undersigned counsel, file their Motion to Strike Plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu’s (“Plaintiff”) Brief in Response to Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Number 92), against Traian Bujduveanu (“Plaintiff”) as follows: PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. On December 10, 2011, Defendants filed their Motion for Final Summary Judgment against the Plaintiff. (Docket Number 83) 2. On January 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Brief in Response to Defendants’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment. (Docket Number 90) 3. On January 12, 2012, Defendants filed their Reply Brief to Plaintiff’s Response Brief and in further support of Defendants’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment. (Docket number 91)
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2012 Page 2 of 5 4. No further briefs are permitted under the United States District Court Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida. 5. On January 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendants’ Reply Brief. (Docket Number 92) Though titled Reply Brief in Response to Defendants’ Response Brief, the brief is clearly in response to Defendants’ Reply Brief. The first paragraph of the brief states that the Plaintiff “files this response to Defendant’s Reply Brief.” Further, the discussion in the brief addresses all the issues raised in Defendants’ Reply Brief. The Federal Docket also lists this filing as: Docket Text: REPLY Brief in Response to  REPLY to Response to Motion re 83 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Traian Bujduveanu. (ar2) 6. As the Plaintiff is not permitted to file a response brief to a reply brief by Local Rules 7.1 and 7.5 of the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, the Plaintiff’s Reply Brief in response to Defendant’s Reply Brief must be stricken. LEGAL ARGUMENT The Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida provide the procedure for Motion practice. Rule 7.1(c) provides that the movant shall file a motion, the party opposing the motion shall file a response brief and the movant may file a reply brief. In the matter at hand, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiff filed a response brief and the Defendants filed a reply brief. In contravention of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, the Plaintiff improperly filed a response brief to Defendants’ reply brief. The Plaintiff did not obtain permission of the Court to file an additional brief, As a response/reply brief to a reply brief is not permitted, absent prior permission of the Court, the 2
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2012 Page 3 of 5 Plaintiff’s response brief to Defendant’s reply brief in support of Defendants motion for final summary judgment must be stricken. Even if the brief was proper, which is denied, the brief is longer than the proper page limitation. Rule 7.1(c)(2) states that a response brief shall not exceed twenty (20) pages and a reply brief shall not exceed ten (10) pages. The thirteen page single spaced brief (exclusive of 20 pages of unauthenticated attachments), if properly double spaced, would exceed twenty pages if considered a response brief. If considered a reply brief, the brief itself would exceed the ten page limitation of the Local Rules. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Response Brief/Reply Brief to Defendants’ Reply Brief must be stricken. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants would move this Court for an Order Striking Plaintiffs Response Brief to a Reply Brief Docket Number 92 and for 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 3
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2012 Page 4 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 19th day of January, 2012, 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 4
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2012 Page 5 of 5 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 5