Docstoc

Document 95

Document Sample
Document 95 Powered By Docstoc
					Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2012 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’ OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND
                   RECOMMENDATION ENTERED FEBRUARY 7, 2012

          On February 7, 2012, the Honorable Andrea M. Simonton, U.S. Magistrate Judge, issued

  a Report and Recommendation pursuant to this Court’s Order of Referral dated June 20, 2010,

  (DE #43) to determine whether dismissal of this matter was appropriate based upon the

  Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (DE #33), the corresponding memoranda in opposition (DE #38

  and #41), and in reply (DE #39).

          The Report is clearly a significant undertaking by the Magistrate which comprehensively

  outlines plaintiff’s broad pro se claims in a understandable format, while also providing a

  detailed analysis of fact and law. Defendants agree with the Report’s final recommendation on

  page 66 granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. However, on page 17 of the Report, because

  the motion to dismiss was an initial responsive pleading, the Magistrate recommended that




  869403:1:LOUISVILLE
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2012 Page 2 of 5


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

  Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his complaint and reiterates this statement on page 64

  concerning an analysis of an unstated claim for conversion. 1

          Defendants respectfully request that this Court does not adopt the Report and

  Recommendation and instead issue an order referring pending motions for summary judgment

  and a motion to strike the amended complaint to the Magistrate for decision and incorporation

  within the Report. The pending motions supplement facts and provide legal analysis that follows

  the work already done by the Magistrate and support that after discovery has closed a final

  judgment in favor of Defendants is appropriate.

          On May 20, 2011, contemporaneously with the initial filing of the Defendants Motion to

  Dismiss, the parties also filed a Joint Scheduling Report (DE #31) setting dates for amendment

  of pleadings (August 5, 2011), completion of discovery (December 16, 2011), and filing

  dispositive motions (December 16, 2011).

          Pursuant to the Joint Scheduling Report, the parties engaged in discovery and filed

  motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment spanned several

  entries beginning on November 22, 2011. 2 The substance of Plaintiff’s motion for summary

  judgment is found within docket entries 72, 73, 75, and 84. The corresponding response filed by

  Defendants is found within docket entries 87 and 88.




  1
    Defendants reserve further objection because they are requesting that this Court refer additional
  motions to the Magistrate for consideration and incorporation into the Report.
  2
    Orders were entered by this Court striking a notice for hearing and two statements of fact. See
  Court Orders DE 71, #76, and #82.



  869403:1:LOUISVILLE                               2
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2012 Page 3 of 5


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

          Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was filed on December 16, 2011, (DE # 83),

  responded to by Plaintiff (DE # 90 and #92), and fully briefed by the filing of Defendants’ reply

  on January 12, 2012, (DE #91). 3

          In addition to these dispositive motions, a discovery dispute arose because Plaintiff failed

  to appear at two scheduled depositions, resulting in Defendants’ motion to strike the amended

  complaint. (DE #78 and #79). This motion is also fully brief by the filing of Plaintiff’s response

  (DE # 86) and Defendants’ reply (DE #89).

          Given that discovery is now closed, summary judgments have been filed, and Plaintiff

  did not amend his pleadings (while also avoiding deposition), the analysis provided by the

  Magistrate should equally apply to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with the

  important exception that further recommendation can be issued by the Magistrate with finality.

  For these reasons, Defendants respectfully object to the Report and request that the pending

  motions for summary judgment and motion to strike be referred to the Magistrate.

                                                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
   Plaintiff filed a reply too (DE #92), which Defendants have moved the court to strike (DE #
  93).



  869403:1:LOUISVILLE                              3
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2012 Page 4 of 5


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



                                 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

         I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 20th day of February, 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




  869403:1:LOUISVILLE                           4
Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2012 Page 5 of 5


                                               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




  869403:1:LOUISVILLE                               5

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Dismas Charities,Ana Gispert,Derek Lamar Thomas,LaShonda Yvette Adams,Traian Bujduveanu