Doc.29

Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2011 Page 1 of 22

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.

JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT

The Plaintiff, Traian Bujduveanu and Defendants Dismas Charities, Ana Gispert, Derek

Thomas and Adams Lashanda, by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to the Court's

"Order Requiring Joint Scheduling Report", hereby submit this Joint Scheduling Report.

A. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND OF THE CASE

Plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu, a former Federal Inmate, has filed a Complaint against

Residential Reentry Center (RRC)/Half Way House, Dismas, and three of its employees, Gispert,

Thomas and Lashanda.

PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY OF CONTENTION & RELIEF SOUGHT

This is an individual action brought by Plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu, a former federal

inmate, against (i) Dismas Charities, Inc., owner and operator of Dismas Charities Halfway

House in Dania Beach, Florida, at which Plaintiff was sent by the Federal Bureau Of Prisons,

after he was released from Federal Custody to Community Custody;(ii) individual Defendants

Ana Gispert, Director of Dismas Charity Halfway House in Dania Beach, Florida, Derek



Thomas, Assistant Director of Dismas Charities halfway house in Dania Beach, Florida, and

Lashanda Adams, Counsel of Dismas Charities halfway House in Dania Beach, Florida. ("An

inmate must be assigned COMMUNITY custody status, prior to transfer to a CCC")

(PS5100.08)

Plaintiffs claims against Dismas Charities, Inc. and the Defendants, allege violations of

Illegal Search and Seizure, False Arrest, Unlawful Imprisonment, Violation of Constitutional

Rights, Unlawful Discrimination of Race, National Origin, Ethnic Groups and Ancestry, Reverse

Discrimination under the color of state and federal law, Discriminatory Harassment, Intentional

Infliction of Mental Distress, Deliberate Indifference, Negligence and Gross Negligence, by

failing to ascertain the medical condition of the Movant complaints of feeling ill.

Plaintiff sues Defendants Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and Lashanda Adams both in their

personal capacity and their official capacity as employees of Dismas Charities, Inc. for violation

of Plaintiff s :

a. First Amendment of the United States Constitution, for Freedom of Speech and retaliation;

b. Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, defining the right to be free from

unlawful seizure of his property or person;

c. Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, defining the rights to due process.

d. Eight Amendment of the United States Constitution, defining the right to be free from cruel

and unusual punishment.

d. Fourteen Amendment of the United States Constitution rights to

procedural due process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 ("Due Process")



e. Violation of state laws of the State Of Florida, to include False arrest and imprisonment,

Assault and battery; Malicious Prosecution, Abuse of process, Negligence, and Gross

Negligence.

f. Unlawful discrimination of race, national origin, ethnic groups and ancestry under the color of

state and federal law.

g. Infliction of Mental Distress,

h. Deliberate Indifference.

i. Negligence and Gross Negligence by failing to ascertain the medical condition of the Plaintiff

complaints of feeling ill.

Plaintiff brings this action for general, compensatory, and punitive damages,

prejudgment interest, costs and Court fees, and other appropriate and just relief resulting from

Defendants' unlawful conduct.

DEFENDANTS' SUMMARY

Defendants contend that Plaintiff, Traian Bujduveanu, was transferred from Federal

Correctional Institute Coleman Low to Dismas Charities, Inc.'s Dania Facility on July 28, 2010.

Dismas' Dania facility is a Residential Re-Entry Center for federal inmates, such as Plaintiff, to

serve out a remaining percentage of their sentence before release. Plaintiff was serving a 35

month sentence for conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic/Power Act, the

Iranian Transactions Regulations, and the Arm/Export Control Act. Plaintiff was scheduled for

release from Dismas on January 3, 2011.

On or about September 28, 2010, Plaintiff was transferred to home detention. He

remained on home detention until October 15, 2010, at which time he was returned to the Dania



facility for violating a condition of his home detention and the possession, manufacture, or

introduction of a hazardous tool. The underlying incident occurred on October 13, 2010, where

Plaintiff was discovered driving an automobile without proper authorization. The vehicle was

located at the Dania facility and was subsequently searched after Plaintiff was observed by staff

and then admitted that he had been operating the vehicle without authorization. A

mobile/cellular telephone was found inside the vehicle, which Plaintiff acknowledged.

A Disciplinary Report by Dismas staff was then prepared and signed by the Plaintiff on

October 15, 2010. In addition, an Incident Repot was also prepared by Dismas on October 20,

2010, and forwarded to the Bureau of Prisons. Also on this day, Dismas advised the Bureau of

Prisons that Plaintiff was terminated from the residential re-entry center due to the accumulation

of the Incident Report, three prior Disciplinary Reports, and general noncompliance with

program rules and regulations. He was, therefore, taken into custody by the U.S. Marshall

Service and transported to the Federal Detention Center in Miami, where he remained until his

release 81 days later.

Plaintiff originally filed with this Court a Motion for Return of Property against Dismas

and Ana Gispert, the Director of the Dania facility on January 12, 2011. The Motion was

preceded by a certified letter from Dismas to Plaintiff dated January 5, 2011, advising him that

his belongings were being held at the facility awaiting someone to pick them up. As of current

day, the items remain at Dismas.

On March 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Dismas, Ana Gispert, Derek

Thomas and LaShanda Adams (improperly named as Adams Lashota) seeking $3.1 million

dollars in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages for a total of $3.6 million



dollars against the Defendants. 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. The Defendants filed a Motionto Dismiss the Complaint which is pending.

No counterclaims are expected.

B. UNCONTESTED AND STIPULATED FACTS

None.

C. LIST OF LEGAL ELEMENTS AND DEFENSES ASSERTED

The Plaintiffs list of the legal elements for each claim is as follows:

a. First Amendment of the United States Constitution, defining the right to freedom of

expression;

b. Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, defining the right to be free from

unlawful seizure of his property or person;

c. Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, defining the rights to due process.

d. Eight Amendment of the United States Constitution, defining the right to be free from cruel

and unusual punishment.

d. Fourteen Amendment of the United States Constitution rights to procedural due process

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 ("Due Process")

e. Violation of state laws of the State Of Florida to include False arrest and imprisonment,

Assault and battery; Malicious Prosecution, Abuse of process, Negligence, and Gross

Negligence.


CASE NO.: 11 -20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON

f. Unlawful discrimination of race, national origin, ethnic groups and ancestry under the color of

state and federal law.

g. Infliction of Mental Distress,

h. Deliberate Indifference.

i. Negligence and Gross Negligence by failing to ascertain the medical condition of the Plaintiff

complaints of feeling ill.

j. Plaintiff brings this action for general, compensatory, and punitive damages; pre-judgment

interest, costs and Court fees; and other appropriate and just relief resulting from Defendants'

unlawful conduct.

Defendants have asserted the following defenses:

The Defendant has not raised defenses at this time. Instead, the Defendants filed a

Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. In the Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants alleged that the

Complaint fails to allege the specific facts and allegations necessary for any cause of action.

Instead the Complaint simply names a cause of action (i.e. abuse of process) without stating the

legal and factual elements for the cause of action. The Complaint fails to delineate which

Defendant is being sued for which specific cause of action. The Complaint also fails to allege

any cause of action against certain Defendants. Even if the factual allegations in the Complaint

are accepted as true, the Complaint fails to properly plead causes of action. The Complaint also

fails to allege any violations of Federal or State law by any Defendant. Without any proper and

sustainable Federal or State cause of action, this lawsuit should be dismissed.



D. WHETHER DISCOVERY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED IN PHASES OR
LIMITED TO CERTAIN ISSUES

The Parties do not believe that discovery should be conducted in phases or limited to

certain issues.

E. A DETAILED SCHEDULE OF DISCOVERY FOR EACH PARTY

Plaintiff and Defendants have attached their discovery schedules to this Report.

F. PROPOSED DATES AND DEADLINES

See attached Schedule on the form provided by the Court.

G. ESTIMATED LENGTH OF TRIAL

This case will be tried by a jury and is estimated to last 4-7 days.

H. LIST OF PENDING MOTIONS

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss which is not ripe as the Plaintiff has not presently

filed a response brief and Defendants have not filed a reply brief. The Motion to Dismiss was

filed on May 4, 2011. There are no other matters presently set before this court other than Joint

Scheduling Report and Motion to Dismiss And Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support by

Dismas Charities, Inc. However, Plaintiff intends to file Motion to Strike Motion to Dismiss and

Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support of the defendants.

I. UNIQUE LEGAL OR FACTUAL ASPECT REQUIRING
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION

Unknown at this time pending the determination of the Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff

is pro se.



J. STATEMENT OF NEED OR AGREEMENT TO REFER MATTERS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Parties agree that the Magistrate can hear all non-dispositive motions. The Parties

agree that the District Court Judge should try this matter and rule on dispositive motions and pre

trial motions. The Parties agree that the District Court Judge shall be the one to try this matter in

front of a jury.

K. LIKELIHOOD OF SETTLEMENT

In light of the demands of the Plaintiff and settlement conversations to date, settlement is

unlikely. The Parties are willing to discuss settlement.

L. ANY LOCAL RULE 16.1B MATTERS

Unknown at this time pending determination of the Motion to Dismiss.

The parties certify that their Rule 26 disclosures will be made at the time of the

preparation of this Report.

The parties certify that their Rule 26 disclosures have been made at the time of the

preparation of this Report.

DATED: DATED: ,: V W
TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU, PRO SE DAVID S. CHAIET, ESQUIRE
Pro Se Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants
5601 W. Broward Blvd. Eisinger, Brown, Lewis, Frankel
Plantation, FL 33317 & Chaiet, P.A.
(954)316-3828 4000 Hollywood Boulevard
orionav(S),msn.com Suite 265-South
Holly
(954)
dchaiettoetsingftfiavy.com

TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU, PRO SE DAVID 57CHAIET, ESQUIRE
Fla. Bar No. 963798



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 19th day of May, 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.

Isi David S. Chaiet
DAVID S. CHAIET, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 963798



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

10


Case Management Deadline Worksheet

ft tJ.AU.5-V 5 .2QII Joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings.
S/»0+Anh^3a2£JI wiied ^ tr.a| furnish opposing counsel with awritten list containing the names and addresses of ail fact witnessesno prejudice be
OCPVaXMC JU^i Parties shall ^ Qn)y ^ w.messes ljsted shaU ^ permjtted tQ testjfy ^^ good cause IS shown ^ ^g 1S intended to to
opposing party. The parties are under acontinuing obligation to supplement discovery responses within ten (10) days ofreceipt or
other notice of new or revised information.

UUUVUC^i-^mi AMe ^^ w.inesses sha||witness listto the testjfy wjthin ^ fourteen day perjod thereat, Piaint.ff shall make .tsand only
/VtfthA-31 20ll Plaintiffmust furnish expert be permiued tQ Defendant, alongwith the summaries/reports required by Local Rule 16 l.K, experts
available for deposition by Defendant.

W(USZaflfr_M>A*ii ^ ^^ w^cnes ^ ^witness list to the Plaintiffalong^with the summaries/reports required by Local shall 16. l.K.itsand only
l)tfr/*W if20li Defendantmust furnish expert ^.^ ^ ^.^ wjthin ^^ dfly perjod Pearler, Defendan, Rule make experts
available for deposition by Plaintiff.

X)ce.embcr llo,ZULi A" discovery must be completed.
Tw^l,- [u 2QJI All dispositive pretrial motions and memoranda oflaw must be filed. Aminimum of fifteen (15) weeks is required for the Court
VCLCOOOec JJA, fc*J. ^^ dispositive motions prior to filing ofthe joint pretrial stipulation. If no dispositive motions will be filed, clearly note
this fact in the Joint Scheduling Report.

A04jQLS±J& ^1 Mediation must be completed. (The parties should select the earliest date to maximize resolution of the case in amanner that
promotes client and judicial economy.)
Jan ii/im 1U 20l2 (a) Joint pretrial stipulation must be filed pursuantto Local Rule 16.1 ,E. The pretrial stipulation shall include Plaintiffs non-b.nding
^^ breakdown ofdamages with corresponding amounts; the witness lists shall be pared down to those witnesses the parties actually
intend to call at trial; and the exhibit lists shall identify the witness introducing each exhibit. The parties shall meet at least one
(1) month prior to the deadline for filing the pretrial stipulation to confer on the preparation ofthat stipulation. The Court
will not accept unilateral pretrial stipulations, and will strike, sua sponte, any such submissions; and
(b) Joint proposed jury instructions (for jury cases) or conclusions of law (non-jury cases) outlining (1) the legal elements of
Plaintiffs claims, including damages, and (2) the legal elements of the defenses raised; and
(c) Joint Summary ofRespective Motions in Limine must be filed. The Summary shall contain acover page providing the
style ofthe case and an index ofthe motions in limine. The Summary shall also include for each evidentiary issue: (0 aone (1) page
motion identifying the evidence sought to be precluded at trial and citing legal authority supporting exclusion; and (//) aone (I) page
response to the motion providing astatement ofthe purpose for which the challenged evidence would be offered and citing legal
authority in support ofadmission ofthe challenged evidence. The parties shall work together to prepare the Summary. Prior to
submission ofthe Summary, the parties are encouraged to resolve evidentiary issues through stipulation.
tiALIAUL li 2MI Final proposed jury instructions or findings of fact and conclusions of law must be submitted. (A courtesy copy shall be hand-
JU -u-") "+ delivered l0 Chambers on 3.5 diskette, WordPerfectformat), each party's list indicating each witness who will testify at trial, aone
sentence synopsis of the testimony, and in consultation with opposing counsel, indicate the amount oftime needed for direct and
cross examination.

finrl ,iHil Pretrial conference. Usually 50 minutes are allotted for pretrial conference unless the parties or the Court, sua sponte. indicate a
greater time is needed.

<WL^ >MZ Trial Date.
llnk/UulA Date ofany other deadline the parties adopt as part oftheir case management plan, including Daubert or Markman hearing. In cases
the parties anticipate aMarkman hearing, counsel must provide dates for the exchange ofproposed disputed claim terms, and due
dates for Plaintiffs brief and Defendant's brief.

[Attachment A]

Case 1:11 -cv-20120-PAS Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/03/2011 Page 6 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/O'SULLIVAN

TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU,

Plaintiff,
v.

ANA GINSPERT and DISMAS
CHARITIES, INC.,

Defendant.

ELECTION TO JURISDICTION BY AUNITED STATES
MAniRTB ATF JUDGE FOR FINAL DISPOSITION OF MOTIONS

In accordance with the provisions of28 U.S.C. 636(c), the undersigned parties to the above-captioned civil
matter herebyjointly and voluntarily elect to have aUnited States Magistrate Judge decide the following motions and
issue a final order orjudgment with respect thereto:
Yes No

*
1. Motions for Costs

2. Motions for Attorney's Fees Yes No

3. Motions for Sanctions Yes No

4. Motions to Dismiss Yes No

5. Motions for Summary Judgment Yes No

6. Other (specify)

(Date) (Signature-Plaintiffs Counsel)

(Date) (Signatuir>*hrhTtTTfs Cdunsel)

<A>^ °v*
(Date) (Signature-Defendant's Counsel)

(Date) (Signature-Defendant's Counsel)

[Attachment B]


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/O'SULLIVAN

TRAIANBUJDUVEANU,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANA GINSPERT and DISMAS
CHARITIES, INC.,

Defendant.

ELECTION TO JURISDICTION BY A
tttmitfxi STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR TRIAL
Inaccordance withthe provisionsof28 U.S.C. 636(c),the undersignedpartiesto the above-captioned
civil matter herebyjointly and voluntarily elect to have aUnited States Magistrate Judge conduct any and all
further proceedings in the case, including TRIAL, and entry offinal judgment with respect thereto.

(5^) (Signature-Plaintiffs Counsel)

(5^) (Signature-Plaintiffs Counsel)

(Date) (Signature-Defendant's
t>
(5^) (Signature-Defendant's Counsel) iVs^-
<*^*^

[Attachment C]




TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU,

Plaintiff,

vs.


Defendants.

DEFENDANTS DISMAS CHARTIES, INC., ANA GISPERT, DEREK THOMAS AND
ADAMS LESHOTA'S DISCOVERY SCHEDULE

Defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and Adams Lashanda,

incorrectly identified as Adams Leshota (collectively "Defendants") pursuant to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Southern District of Florida Local Rules, hereby file their

discovery schedule as follows:

Written Discovery:

Defendant Dismas propounded initial interrogatories and requests for production upon the

Plaintiff on April 28, 2011. Additional written discovery may be needed following the Court's

ruling on Defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendants hope to complete written discovery on or

before September 15, 2011, which will include requests for production, requests for admissions

and interrogatories.


11-20120-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON
Depositions:

Defendants intend to set the Plaintiff for depositions sometime in August 2011. Defendants

anticipate defending the depositions of Dismas, Gispert,Thomas and Lashanda. Defendants may

need to depose representatives of the United States Marshall's Service and Federal Bureau of

Prisons, along with the Plaintiffs wife and son. These depositions will likely be set in

September or October 2011.

Expert Discovery:

At this time expert discovery is not anticipated unless the Plaintiff presents a claim for physical

or mental injury. If so, then Defendants will need to retain an expert in the appropriate medical

specialty.

Respectfully submitted,

EISINGER, BROWN, LEWIS, FRANKEL,
& CHAIET, PA.
Attorneys for Defendants
4000 Hollywood Boulevard
Suite 265-South
Hollywood, FL 33021
(954) 894-8000
(954) 894-8015 Fax

BY: /S/ David S. Chaiet
FBN: 963798





Isi David S. Chaiet



SERVICE LIST


Traian Bujduveanu
Pro Se Plaintiff

Tel: (954) 316-3828
Email: orionav(a),msn.com




TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU,

Plaintiff,

vs.


Defendants.

DEFENDANTS DISMAS CHARTIES, INC., ANA GISPERT, DEREK THOMAS AND
ADAMS LESHOTA'S DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO RULE 26
OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AND CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

Defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and Adams Lashanda,

incorrectly identified as Adams Leshota (collectively "Defendants") pursuant to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Southern District of Florida Local Rules, hereby makes their

initial disclosures:

Traian Bujduveanu

PWMK at Dismas Charities, Inc.
141 N.W. 1st Avenue
Dania Beach, FL 33004



Ana Gispert
Dismas Charities, Inc.
141 N.W. 1stAvenue

Derek Thomas
141 N.W. 1st Avenue

Adams Lashanda
141 N.W. 1st Avenue

PWMK at the United States Marshalls Service
Federal Courthouse Square
400 N. Miami Avenue, 6th Floor
Miami, FL 33128

PWMK Federal Bureau of Prisons-Miami Detention Center
33 Northeast 4th Street
Miami, Florida 33101-9118

Wife and Children of
Traian Bujduveanu



1. Defendants hereby discloses the following documents which may support their defenses as

follows:

1. Dismas file on Mr. Bujduveanu.

2. United States Marshall's file on Mr. Bujduveanu.

3. United States Federal Bureau of Prison file on Mr. Bujduveanu.

4. Manuals and handbooks of Dismas for residents and other released inmates.

2. No other disclosures are required to be made by the Defendants pursuant to Rule 26 at this

time.

Respectfully submitted,

EISINGER, BROWN, LEWIS, FRANKEL,
& CHAIET, PA.
Attorneys for Defendants
4000 Hollywood Boulevard
Suite 265-South
Hollywood, FL 33021
(954) 894-8000
(954) 894-8015 Fax

BY: /S/ David S. Chaiet
FBN: 963798





Isl David S. Chaiet



SERVICE LIST


Traian Bujduveanu
Pro Se Plaintiff

Tel: (954) 316-3828
Email: orionav@msn.com

Doc.29

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Doc.29

Similar to Doc.29 (20)

More from Cocoselul Inaripat

More from Cocoselul Inaripat (20)

Doc.29