DEFENDANTS DISMAS CHARTIES_ INC._ ANA GISPERT_ DEREK THOMAS AND ADAMS LESHOTA’S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS RESPONSE BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SECOND REQUEST FOR

Document Sample
DEFENDANTS DISMAS CHARTIES_ INC._ ANA GISPERT_ DEREK THOMAS AND ADAMS LESHOTA’S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS RESPONSE BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SECOND REQUEST FOR Powered By Docstoc
					Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 62             Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 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 DISMAS CHARTIES, INC., ANA GISPERT, DEREK THOMAS AND
   ADAMS LESHOTA’S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
    DEFENDANTS RESPONSE BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
       COMPEL RESPONSES TO SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND
                           INTERROGATORIES

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

  incorrectly identified as Adams Leshota (collectively “Defendants”) by and through their

  undersigned counsel, file their Brief in Response to Plaintiff Traian Bujduveanu’s (“Plaintiff”)

  Motion to Strike Defendants’ Response Brief in Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement

  Motion to Compel Responses to Second Request for Production and Interrogatories and state as

  follows:

         1.      Plaintiff, a former Federal Inmate, has filed a vague and confusing lawsuit against

  his Community Correction Center/Half Way House, Dismas, and three of its employees, Gispert,

  Thomas and Lashanda Adams. 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. However, the Plaintiff cannot maintain any State or Federal cause of action
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 62             Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 2 of 6


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

  against any defendant. The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit which has

  been briefed and pending ruling since June 5, 2011. Defendants believe that the disposition of

  that Motion will bring and end to this lawsuit and the need for discovery and ruling on the

  Plaintiffs’ discovery motions.

         2.      Despite the fact that the Defendants timely and properly responded to all

  discovery, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel (Docket number 58). Defendants timely responded

  to the Motion to Compel. (Docket number 59)

         3.      In response to the Defendants response brief, instead of replying, the Plaintiff

  filed a Motion to Strike Defendant’s Response Brief to his Motion to Compel. (Docket number

  60).

         4.      For the reasons set forth below, the Motion must be denied.

                       ARGUMENT AND CITIATION TO AUTHORITY

         The Defendants have properly responded to the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

  Requests for Production and Interrogatories.

         Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Requests for

  Production and Second Set of Interrogatories against the Defendants. (Docket number 58). As

  the Defendants have responded to all interrogatories and agreed to produce and produced the

  requested documents at their counsel’s office as they are kept in the course of business, the

  Defendants have complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 (2)(E). Accordingly, the

  Motions must be denied. Rather than be repetitive, the Defendants adopt their response brief

  (Docket Number 59) as though it is fully set forth herein, in response to this Motion.




                                                  2
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 62             Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 3 of 6


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

         Despite the facts that the Defendants, timely responded to the Plaintiff’s Motion to

  Compel, the Plaintiff has moved to strike the Defendants’ Response Brief.           However, the

  Plaintiff has not provided any legal or factual basis to strike the Defendants’ Response Brief.

  Under the local rules, the Defendants have the right to file a response brief. The Plaintiff’s five

  page brief is devoid of any discussion or reason why the Response Brief should be stricken. It

  appears that the only reason the Plaintiff wants to strike the response brief is because he

  disagrees with the Defendants’ position stated in the response brief. The fact that the Plaintiff

  does not like the content of the response brief is not a reason to strike the brief. Since the

  Plaintiff has not provided any legal basis to strike Defendant’s Brief, the Plaintiff’s Motion must

  be denied.

          The Plaintiff’s motion is nothing more than an attempt to argue the merits of his case

  rather than the propriety of the Defendants’ discovery responses. (See docket number 60,

  paragraphs 1-18, pages 2-4 of the Motion). For example, the Plaintiff makes baseless allegations

  that Defendant Gispert is a racist and that Defendant Thomas has people “fronting for him.”

  (Docket number 60, paragraphs 17-18)        Clearly, these issues have nothing to do with the

  Defendants’ Response Brief. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is not only improper as a whole but

  is also an improper forum to argue the alleged merits of his case.

         The Plaintiff has moved to strike Defendant’s Response Brief to Plaintiff’s Motion to

  Compel. The Plaintiff, pro se, apparently fails to understand that the purpose of a Motion to

  Compel is to compel responses to discovery when the other side does not respond. In this case,

  the Defendants have clearly responded to all discovery. However, the Plaintiff does not like the




                                                   3
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 62              Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 4 of 6


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

  Defendants answers to the questions as they are in contravention to his position and harm his

  case.

          The Plaintiff is confusing a Motion to Strike a Response Brief with a Motion to Strike a

  Response Brief That He Does Not Like. The Plaintiff is apparently trying to force the Defendants

  to answer discovery with the answers that are satisfactory to him. However, the Plaintiff cannot

  force and compel the Defendants to change their answers and respond in a manner acceptable to

  the Plaintiff. Further, the Plaintiff cannot strike a response brief simply because he does not

  agree with or like the arguments raised in the response brief.

          As the Plaintiff’s Motion has no basis in law or fact, it should be stricken. Plaintiff

  should be sanctioned for forcing the Defendants’ to respond to his baseless Motion.

          WHEREFORE, Defendants Dismas Charities, Inc., Ana Gispert, Derek Thomas and

  Lashanda Adams, incorrectly identified as Adams Leshota respectfully request that Plaintiff’s

  Motion be denied and that the Court grant any further relief it deems appropriate, including

  sanctions against the Plaintiff.

                                                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




                                                   4
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 62           Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 Page 5 of 6


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



                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

         I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 7th day of October, 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




                                                5
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 62        Entered on FLSD Docket 10/07/2011 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: orionav@msn.com




                                             6

				
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