Mantiply v. Horne et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying 12 Motion to Set Aside. Signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Butler, Jr on 5/30/2013. (sdb)

IN
 THE
 UNITED
 STATES
 DISTRICT
 COURT
 FOR
 THE

SOUTHERN
 DISTRICT
 OF
 ALABAMA

SOUTHERN
 DIVISION

In
 Re:

)

)

RICHARD
 D.
 HORNE
 and

)

PATRICIA
 NELSON
 HORNE,

)

)

Debtors,

)

)

MARY
 BETH
 MANTIPLY,

)

)

CIVIL
 ACTION
 NO.
 13-­‐00258-­‐CB-­‐B

Plaintiff/Appellant,

)

)

v.

)

)

RICHARD
 D.
 HORNE
 and

)

PATRICIA
 NELSON
 HORNE,

)

)

Defendants/Appellees.

)

ORDER

This
 matter
 is
 before
 the
 Court
 on
 appellant’s
 motion
 to
 set
 aside
 the
 order

dated
 May
 29,
 2013
 in
 which
 the
 Court
 granted
 appellees’
 motion
 to
 strike
 the

appellant’s
 brief.

 (Doc.
 12.)

 Appellant
 asserts
 that
 the
 brief
 should
 not
 be
 stricken

because
 it
 was
 timely
 filed.

 As
 the
 order
 makes
 clear,
 the
 brief
 has
 been
 stricken
 for

failure
 to
 comply
 with
 the
 format
 set
 forth
 in
 Rule
 8010(a)(1),
 not
 for
 untimely

filing.

 Moreover,
 appellant
 may
 cure
 this
 defect
 be
 filing
 a
 brief
 in
 the
 proper
 format

by
 the
 deadline
 set
 forth
 in
 the
 order.

 The
 motion
 to
 set
 aside
 is,
 therefore,
 DENIED.

In
 her
 motion
 (Doc.
 12),
 appellant
 also
 seeks
 Rule
 11
 sanctions
 against

appellees’
 counsel.

 Rule
 11
 contains
 a
 safe
 harbor
 provision
 that
 provides
 the

opposing
 party
 with
 21
 days
 to
 correct
 the
 alleged
 violation.

 The
 provision
 states,
 in

relevant
 part:

A
 motion
 for
 sanctions
 must
 be
 made
 separately
 from
 any

other
 motion
 and
 must
 describe
 the
 specific
 conduct
 that
 allegedly

violates
 Rule
 11(b).

 The
 motion
 must
 be
 served
 under
 Rule
 5,
 but
 it

must
 not
 be
 filed
 or
 presented
 to
 the
 court
 if
 the
 challenged
 paper,

claim,
 defense,
 contention
 or
 denial
 is
 withdrawn
 or
 appropriately

corrected
 within
 21
 days
 after
 service
 or
 within
 another
 time
 the

court
 sets.

Fed.
 R.
 Civ.
 P.
 11(c)(2).

 As
 appellant
 has
 failed
 to
 comply
 with
 these
 requirements,

the
 request
 for
 sanction
 is
 DENIED.1

DONE
 and
 ORDERED
 this
 the
 30th
 day
 of
 May,
 2013.

s/Charles
 R.
 Butler,
 Jr.

Senior
 United
 States
 District
 Judge

1
 The
 Court
 also
 notes
 that
 appellant’s
 request
 for
 sanctions
 is
 based
 on
 an

erroneous
 assertion.
 Appellant
 avers
 that
 appellees’
 counsel
 would
 have
 known
 that

the
 brief
 had
 been
 filed
 if
 he
 had
 made
 a
 reasonable
 review
 of
 the
 Clerk’s
 record.

The
 brief
 had
 not
 been
 docketed
 and
 did
 not
 appear
 on
 the
 docket
 sheet
 at
 the
 time

the
 motion
 to
 strike
 was
 filed.

 As
 stated
 in
 the
 Court’s
 previous
 order,
 “[o]n
 May
 29,

the
 Hornes
 filed
 a
 motion
 to
 strike
 the
 appellant’s
 brief
 (Doc.
 9),
 which
 at
 that
 time

did
 not
 appear
 to
 have
 been
 filed.

 Shortly
 thereafter,
 the
 appellant’s
 brief
 was
 located

by
 the
 Clerk
 of
 Court
 and
 docketed
 (Doc.
 10).”

 (Emphasis
 added.)
 Hence,
 the

appellant’s
 brief
 was
 not
 part
 of
 the
 public
 record
 at
 the
 time
 the
 motion
 to
 strike

was
 filed.