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)

Download PDF
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 be  filed  or  presented  to  the  court  if  the  challenged  paper,   claim,  defense,  contention  or  denial  is  withdrawn  or  appropriately   corrected  within  21  days  after  service  or  within  another  time  the   court  sets.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.      

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?