Defendants filed a motion to strike two briefs filed by the pro se plaintiff. The defendants argue that the plaintiff improperly filed a response brief to the defendants' reply brief and a supplemental motion, in violation of the local rules. The defendants assert that the plaintiff is attempting to delay a ruling on the defendants' pending summary judgment motion that has been briefed since January 2012. The defendants move the court to strike the plaintiff's two briefs from the record.

1. Case 1:11-cv-20120-AMS Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2012 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
PLAINTIFF’S DOCKET ENTRIES 114 AND 115
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”) Reply Brief (DE #114) and Plaintiff’s Supplemental
Motion for Summary Judgment (DE #115) as follows:
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. On December 10, 2011, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment
against the Plaintiff. (DE #83)
2. On January 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Response. (DE #90)
3. On January 12, 2012, Defendants filed their Reply Brief. (DE #91)
4. On January 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed another brief (DE #92), titled “Reply Brief in
Response to Defendants’ Response Brief,” which in content and filing designation given by
Plaintiff shows it to be a sur-reply.

2. Case 1:11-cv-20120-AMS Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2012 Page 2 of 5
5. On March 15, 2012, Judge Seitz issued an Order (DE #98) which stated in
relevant part:
Based on the allegations of the amended pleading, the parties shall file
supplements to their existing motions for summary judgment by April 11, 2012
to address any new issues. No additional discovery will be permitted. (Emphasis
supplied)
6. Defendants then timely filed their Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment
(DE #103).
7. On May 21, 2012, Magistrate Simonton granted Plaintiff an extension to respond
to Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment. (DE #108).
8. Plaintiff filed his Response within the extension period on July 3, 2012. (DE
#111).
9. Defendants timely filed their Reply on July 12, 2012. (DE #113), which
concluded briefing under the Local and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
10. Plaintiff, however, has filed two additional briefs, Docket Entries 114 and 115.
11. 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, Defendants
move this Court to strike them from the record.
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 timely and properly filed a Supplemental Motion for
2

3. Case 1:11-cv-20120-AMS Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2012 Page 3 of 5
Summary Judgment pursuant to the Court’s Order (DE #98), the Plaintiff filed a response brief
and the Defendants filed a reply brief.
In contravention of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, Plaintiff improperly
filed a Response brief to Defendants’ Reply Brief (DE #114) and a Supplemental Motion in
response (DE #115). These briefs do not raise any new issues for this Court to consider.
Instead, these additional briefs appear simply to be an attempt by Plaintiff to further burden the
Court and counsel with repetitive and irrelevant arguments with the apparent purpose to further
delay an ultimate ruling on summary judgment, which has been pending since January 12, 2012.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants would move this Court for an Order
Striking Plaintiffs Response Brief to a Reply Brief (DE #114) and Supplemental Response Brief
(DE #115), 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

4. Case 1:11-cv-20120-AMS Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2012 Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 14th day of August, 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

5. Case 1:11-cv-20120-AMS Document 116 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2012 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: orionav@msn.com
5