DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFEND

Document Sample
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFEND Powered By Docstoc
					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 [91] 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: orionav@msn.com




                                             5

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: United States Courthouse,Southern District Of Florida,Traian Bujduveanu v. Dismas Charities,Ana Gispert,Derek Thomas,Lashanda Adams,Mental and Physical Torture at Dismas Charities,Abuse at Dismas Charities,Civil Rights Violations at Dismas Charities,Illegal Search And Seizure at Dismas Charities,Discrimination and Reverse Discrimination at Dismas House,Abuse at Dismas Charities 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 LASHANDA Defendants. _________________________________________/ PLAINTIFF TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS ANA GISPERT, DEREK THOMAS AND LASHANDA ADAMS � � Plaintiffs, Traian Bujduveanu, Pro Se, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, propound the CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd 09/09/2011 18:13 AMS, MEDIATION, REF_DISCOV U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Bujduveanu v. Ginspert et al Assigned to: Judge Patricia A. Seitz Referred to: Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton Cause: 28:1346 Tort Claim Plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu represented by Traian Bujduveanu 5601 W Broward Blvd. Plantation, FL 33317 954-316-3828 PRO SE Date Filed: 01/12/2011 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Sui CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd 13/09/2011 14:31 AMS, MEDIATION, REF_DISCOV U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Bujduveanu v. Ginspert et al Assigned to: Judge Patricia A. Seitz Referred to: Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton Cause: 28:1346 Tort Claim Plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu represented by Traian Bujduveanu 5601 W Broward Blvd. Plantation, FL 33317 954-316-3828 PRO SE Date Filed: 01/12/2011 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd 16/09/2011 17:07 AMS, MEDIATION, REF_DISCOV U.S. District Court Southern District