Doc.64

Case 1:11-cv-20120-PAS Document 64 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2011 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 MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL,
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY FROM
PLAINTIFF

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 Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel, Supplemental

Motions and Motion to Stay Discovery from Plaintiff 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

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 four separate Motions and Supplemental Motions regarding

Defendants’ discovery response. (See Docket Numbers 53, 58, 60 and 61).

3. The filing of these motions has required the Defendants to respond to all motions

while their motion to dismiss has been pending since June, 2011. This has resulted in significant

cost and time to Defendants and their counsel.

4. The Plaintiff, in filing these discovery Motions, has violated the Order Setting

Trial Date, Pretrial Deadlines and Referral to Magistrate, docket number 44.

5. The Discovery Procedures for Magistrate Simonton, section C, No Written

Motions, specifically states that:

No written discovery motions, including motions to compel and motions for
protective order shall be filed unless requested by Magistrate Judge
Simonton. It is the intent of this procedure to minimize the necessity of
Motions.

6. Despite the Court’s order, the Plaintiff continues to file discovery motions to

compel even though the Magistrate has not requested a motion to compel.

7. Each time a motion is filed the Defendants’ counsel receives electronic notice

from the Clerk of the Court of the Motion along with a date a response is required. Defendants

have timely complied with the Clerks request to protect their rights, even though the Plaintiff’s

motions are legal nullities (because no motions to compel were requested by the Magistrate).

2



8. As the Plaintiff has improperly filed discovery motions absent any request for a

motion from the Magistrate Judge, the Plaintiffs Motions (Docket numbers 53, 58, 60 and 61)

must be stricken.

9. Plaintiff should be ordered not to file any additional discovery motions unless

instructed to do so by the Magistrate.

10. Plaintiff should also be sanctioned for improperly filing motions, including the

Defendants attorneys’ fees to respond to the Motions, as per the deadlines set by the Clerk of

Court electronically.

11. As a Motion to Dismiss is pending and the Plaintiff has propounded the allotted

amount of 25 interrogatory questions, counting subparts to each Defendant, the Plaintiff should

be stayed and prohibited from propounding additional discovery. This is especially true because

if the Motion to Dismiss is granted, the lawsuit may become a legal nullity.

12. Defendants have had to spend time and attorneys’ fees responding to discovery

concerning a complaint that may be dismissed. Accordingly, equity demands that the Plaintiff be

stayed from propounding additional discovery until the Court rules on Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss the Complaint.

3



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



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 12th 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



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

Doc.64

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Doc.64

Similaire à Doc.64 (20)

Plus de Cocoselul Inaripat

Plus de Cocoselul Inaripat (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Doc.64