Inglis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Filing
158
ORDER denying 141 Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure Directed at Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Fourth Request for Production; denying 142 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 11/16/2016. (HJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
RICHARD K. INGLIS, as Special
Trustee to the trust under the will of
Rosa B. Schweiker, dated February 2,
1961, the Frederick W. Berlinger
Revocable Deed of Trust, dated
10/17/1991, as amended and restated.
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:14-cv-677-FtM-29CM
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff's Renewed Motion
for an Order Compelling Disclosure Directed at Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's
Fourth Request for Production (Doc. 141) filed on October 19, 2016 and Plaintiff’s
Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions (Doc. 142) filed on October
24, 2016. Defendant opposes these motions. Docs. 145, 154.
I.
Background
On November 5, 2014, this case was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Doc. 1.
transferred to this Court on November 21, 2014. Doc. 13.
The case later was
This case involves two family trusts: the Rosa B. Schweiker Trust and the
Frederick W. Berlinger Trust (the “Berlinger Trusts”). 1 Doc. 155 at 1. Plaintiff is
the Special Trustee of the Berlinger Trusts pursuant to the Orders of the Probate
Court of Collier County, Florida.
Id. Plaintiff brought this action alleging civil
theft pursuant to section 772.11 of the Florida Statutes. Id. at 2.
According to Plaintiff, on or about August 8, 2011, the Berlinger Trusts’ assets
had a value of $6,464,723.96, and Defendant held the assets in trust fund accounts
as part of the portfolio for the Berlinger Trusts. Id. at 3. On or about August 8,
2011, the Office of the Trustee requested that Defendant transfer the Berlinger
Trusts’ assets in its possession to the successor trustee.
Id.
The Office of the
Trustee made numerous inquiries as to the location of the Berlinger Trusts’ assets,
but Defendant never responded to the inquiries. Id. at 4. Plaintiff states that fifty
days passed with no indication that Defendant was going to transfer the Berlinger
Trusts’ assets. Id. at 3 ¶ 19. Once fifty days had passed, on September 27, 2011,
the Office of the Trustee sent pre-suit notice to Defendant pursuant to section 722.11
of the Florida Statutes. 2 Id. at 4-5. However, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant did
not return the Berlinger Trusts’ assets by November 2, 2011. Id. at 5.
On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint. Doc.
86. The Court recommended granting in part the motion, which United States District
Judge John E. Steele adopted. Docs. 119, 140. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is the
operative complaint in this matter. Doc. 155.
1
Plaintiff seems to have cited an incorrect statute number. The statute “civil
remedy for theft or exploitation” is section 772.11, not section 722.11, of the Florida Statutes.
Fla. Stat. § 772.11.
2
-2-
Plaintiff argues that Defendant intentionally failed to transfer the
$6,464,723.96 to the successor trustee. Id. at 4. Moreover, Plaintiff argues that
Defendant intentionally concealed the location of the Berlinger Trusts’ assets by
refusing to communicate with the Office of the Trustee, the beneficiaries to the
Berlinger Trusts, and their agents regarding the transfer in trust assets after
Defendant was removed from its position as corporate trustee.
Id. at 5-6.
Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that the Office of the Trustee had an immediate right
of possession of the Berlinger Trusts’ assets and was wrongfully deprived of that right
when Defendant failed to transfer the assets. Id. at 5. By failing to transfer the
assets, Plaintiff argues that the Office of the Trustee could not make decisions
regarding the distribution; could not make payments from the Berlinger Trusts; and
could not exercise his fiduciary duty because he could not monitor the trust funds.
Id. at 4.
II.
Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel (Doc. 141)
On August 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Second Motion for an Order Compelling
Disclosure because Plaintiff found Defendant’s response evasive and incomplete.
Doc. 96 at 3-4. Plaintiff’s Fourth Request for Production seeks the “complete file [of]
the work done and paid for the Berlinger Trusts by Dechert LLP in 2009.” Doc. 961 at 2.
Defendant objected to this request because the documents sought are
immaterial to the present case and are not calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. 3
Doc. 96-3 at 3.
Nonetheless, Defendant answered that
Effective December 1, 2015, the phrase “reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence” is not part of Rule 26(b)(1). “The former provision of [Rule
3
-3-
“[n]otwithstanding the forgoing objections, [Defendant] has not been able to locate
such a file in its possession.” Id.
The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel
because Plaintiff did not show how Dechert LLP’s (“Dechert”) work in 2009 is relevant
to Defendant’s transfer of the Berlinger Trusts’ assets in 2011. Doc. 118 at 6-7.
Plaintiff objected to the Order, which Judge Steele overruled. Doc. 124. On October
19, 2016, Plaintiff filed this renewed motion, seeking the same relief as he did in his
second motion to compel (Doc. 96). Doc. 141 at 1. Given the procedural posture of
this motion, the Court construes this present motion to compel as a motion to
reconsider the Court’s Order (Doc. 118).
“Reconsideration of a court's previous order is an extraordinary remedy and,
thus, is a power which should be used sparingly.” Carter v. Premier Rest. Mgmt.,
No. 2:06-CV-212-FTM-99DNF, 2006 WL 2620302, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2006)
(citing Am. Ass’n of People with Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1339 (M.D.
Fla. 2003)). Courts have recognized three grounds to justify reconsideration: “(1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; [or] (3)
the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Sussman v. Salem,
Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994).
“A motion for
reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely readdress issues litigated
previously,” Paine Webber Income Props. Three Ltd. P’ship v. Mobil Oil Corp., 902 F.
Supp. 1514, 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1995), and must “set forth facts or law of a strongly
26(b)(1)] for discovery of relevant but inadmissible information that appears ‘reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence’ is [] deleted.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1) advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment.
-4-
convincing nature to demonstrate to the court the reason to reverse its prior decision.”
Carter, 2006 WL 2620302, at *1 (citing Taylor Woodrow Constr. Corp. v.
Sarasota/Manatee Auth., 814 F. Supp. 1072, 1072-73 (M.D. Fla. 1993)). It is the
movant’s burden to establish the “extraordinary circumstances” justifying
reconsideration. Mannings v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cty., Fla., 149 F.R.D. 235,
235 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
Here, Plaintiff’s argument seems to rely on newly discovered evidence. See
Sussman, 153 F.R.D. at 694. Rather than setting forth clear law and extraordinary
circumstances justifying his motion for reconsideration, however, Plaintiff presents
somewhat unclear arguments as to why the Court should grant his motion. See
Mannings, 149 F.R.D. at 235; Doc. 141.
First, Plaintiff argues that on September 30, 2016, Plaintiff deposed
Defendant’s expert witness, William Ries (“Ries”).
Doc. 141 at 2.
According to
Plaintiff, Ries testified that Defendant could have entered into a non-judicial
settlement agreement instead of seeking a court order and accomplished the
modification of terms 4 in less time.
Id. at 2-3.
Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff
deliberately chose a slower method of seeking a court order to modify the Berlinger
Trusts because of Dechert’s analysis of the trusts. Id. at 3. Plaintiff argues that
the attorney who provided legal advice to Bruce Berlinger (“Berlinger”) put Berlinger
in conflict with the trust provisions. 5
4
Id.
Ultimately, Plaintiff argues that
Plaintiff does not clarify what terms he refers to. Doc. 141 at 2-3.
Plaintiff does not sufficiently explain not only who Bruce Berlinger is but also which
attorney provided what opinion to Bruce Berlinger and what alimony and Defendant’s
5
-5-
Dechert’s work in 2009 is relevant because it shows Defendant’s criminal intent
necessary to prove his civil theft claim here. Id.
In addition, Plaintiff asserts that he spoke with attorney Robert Freedman
(“Freedman”) of Dechert on October 14, 2016. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Freedman
represented the Berlinger Trusts, the trusts’ beneficiaries, and Plaintiff in 2008 and
worked on whether certain distributions from the trusts could be made to satisfy some
existing obligations. Id. at 3-4. When Plaintiff asked Freedman for a copy of the
letters in the Dechert’s file that Plaintiff is seeking to compel here, Freedman did not
provide a copy and a reason for his non-disclosure. Id. at 4. Plaintiff argues that
his conversation with Freedman shows that Defendant acted against Dechert’s advice
and delayed the transfer of the trusts’ assets in order to benefit from tolling of the
statute of limitations.
Id. at 4-5.
In summary, new evidence Plaintiff shows
includes Ries’ deposition which took place on September 30, 2016, Plaintiff’s phone
call with Freedman on October 14, 2016, and a series of letters and emails. Id. at 2;
Docs. 141-4, 141-5, 141-7.
To “introduce previously unsubmitted evidence on a motion to reconsider,”
Plaintiffs, as a movant for reconsideration here, bear the burden to show that “the
evidence was not available during the pendency of the motion [to compel.]” Mays v.
U.S. Postal Serv., 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir. 1997). Under Rule 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, which guides Plaintiff’s burden of presenting new evidence,
payment of distributions he is referring to. Id. at 3. Plaintiff’s argument seems to mix facts
from this case and the District’s previous case between the Berlinger family and Defendant,
Berlinger v. Wells Fargo, No. 2:11-cv-459-JES-CM.
-6-
reconsideration is appropriate where “there is new evidence that could not have bene
discovered previously with reasonable diligence.” S.E.C. v. Kirkland, No. 6:06-cv183-Orl-28KRS, 2008 WL 918705, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 2, 2008); see Macleod v. Scott,
No. 3:14-cv-793-J-39MCR, 2014 WL 7005910, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2014)
(“Although not specifically mentioned in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
motion seeking a reconsideration of an earlier ruling is governed either by Rule 59 or
Rule 60.”). The court “does not abuse its discretion to deny reconsideration based on
evidence that was available to the party, but the party failed to collect it or produce
it.” Kirkland, 2008 WL 918705, at *1. Here, Plaintiff does not set forth relevant
legal authority or arguments to meet his burden. Doc. 141. Plaintiff should have
been able to collect and present the series of letters and emails (Doc. 141-5) because
the letters and emails date back to years 2008 to 2010. See Kirkland, 2008 WL
918705, at *1; Doc. 141-5. Furthermore, Plaintiff does not argue at all why Plaintiff
could not have deposed Ries or talked with Freedman even with reasonable diligence
before Plaintiff filed his motion to compel on August 24, 2016. Doc. 141; Doc. 96.
Even assuming that Plaintiff meets his burden, Plaintiff’s argument as to how
new evidence relates to this motion is not clear. In the motion, Plaintiff’s references
to exhibits, a non-judicial settlement agreement, and a court order seem to mix facts
from the previous Berlinger case. Doc. 141 at 2-3. Yet, Plaintiff does not clearly
explain what exactly he is referring to and why his references are relevant to this
case.
Id. Regardless, as Defendant points out, this case does not involve trust
distributions to beneficiaries or the satisfaction of alimony payments. Doc. 154 at 7.
-7-
Based on the analysis above, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not set forth
relevant law or clearly explain his arguments in support of his motion. Doc. 141.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s renewed motion to compel, construed as a motion for
reconsideration.
III.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions (Doc.
142).
Plaintiff has filed five motions for extension in the span of two months: on
September 12, 2016, September 26, 2016, October 10, 2016, October 24, 2016 and
November 3, 2016.
Docs. 110, 121, 131, 142, 153.
The Court denied as moot
Plaintiff’s first motion for extension (Doc. 110) on September 23, 2016 and denied the
emergency motion for extension (Doc. 121) on October 17, 2016. Docs. 118, 139.
Plaintiff objected to the Court’s Order (Doc. 118) entered on September 23, 2016,
which objection Judge Steele overruled, and also to the Court’s Order (Doc. 139)
entered on October 17, 2016, on which Judge Steele has not yet ruled. Docs. 122,
124, 146.
On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff again filed a motion for extension because
Plaintiff has not deposed Janice Evans (“Evans”). 6
Doc. 142 at 1-2.
Evans,
Defendant’s employee, is on maternity leave and has no certain date of return. Doc.
145 at 4 ¶ 10.
Plaintiff argues that Evans has knowledge of how Defendant
transferred the trust assets after closing the trusts’ accounts.
Doc. 142 at 2.
On September 13, 2016, the Court stayed Plaintiff’s deposition of Evans because of
her health reasons. Doc. 115. The Court ordered Defendant to produce Evans for a
deposition when her medical problems are resolved or she returns from maternity leave. Id.
at 4.
6
-8-
According to Plaintiff, David R. Mull (“Mull”), whom Plaintiff deposed on September
28, 2016, identified Evans as a person who handled the transfer of the trust assets
after Defendant closed the trust accounts. Id. Plaintiff seeks to extend the deadline
for dispositive motions until fourteen days after the deposition of Evans.
Id.
Defendant opposes the motion and argues that had Evans’ deposition been so critical,
Defendant would have produced her for a deposition anytime between 2014 and
August 2016 when she left on medical leave. Doc. 145 at 4. Furthermore, Evans
might return from maternity leave in January or February 2016, only a few weeks
before trial in this matter. Id. at 5.
District courts have broad discretion when managing their cases in order to
ensure that the cases move to a timely and orderly conclusion. Chrysler Int’l Corp.
v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002). Rule 16 requires a showing of
good cause for modification of a court’s scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
“This good cause standard precludes modification unless the schedule cannot be met
despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc.,
133 F. 3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff does not show good cause. Plaintiff has been aware of Evans’
importance and her knowledge of the transfer in April 2016 when Defendant served
its initial disclosure to Plaintiff. Doc. 142-1 at 3-4. Defendant’s initial disclosure
clearly reveals that Evans, Defendant’s employee, “will have information regarding
the transfer of the [Berlinger Trusts’] assets from [Defendant] to ING and/or
[Defendant] to SunTrust.”
Id. at 4.
Plaintiff has been aware of this, as
-9-
demonstrated by his response to Defendant’s motion to stay Evans’ deposition (Doc.
106). Doc. 111 at 2-3. Plaintiff could have deposed her at least anytime between
April and August 2016, but declined to depose her on August 23 or 24, 2016. Doc.
145 at 3. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s initial disclosure on November 16, 2015 includes
Mull, a witness who supposedly revealed the critical role of Evans. Doc. 44 at 2.
Plaintiff, however, waited almost a year to finally depose Mull on September 28, 2016
when the discovery deadline was October 3, 2016. Docs. 85, 142-2 at 1. The Court
already found that conducting depositions toward the end of the discovery period
showed Plaintiff’s lack of diligence in meeting the discovery deadline. Doc. 139 at
10.
Even assuming Mull’s deposition recently revealed the importance of Evans’
role, Plaintiff waited another month after the deposition of Mull to file this motion
for extension. Docs. 142, 142-2. This unexplained gap between Mull’s deposition
on September 28, 2016 and this present motion for extension filed on October 24,
2016 makes Plaintiff’s argument unconvincing that Mull’s deposition informed the
importance of Evans’ role. Doc. 142 at 2. Rather, as Defendant points out, this
motion appears to be one of many motions for extension that Plaintiff relentlessly has
filed in the span of two months. Docs. 110, 121, 131, 142, 145 at 1, 153.
The Court reminds Plaintiff that Plaintiff should be careful in drafting and
filing motions. The Court’s opinions “are not intended as mere first drafts, subject
to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.” Carter, 2006 WL 2620302,
at *1. (citing Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Industries, Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288
- 10 -
(N.D. Ill. 1988)). To contest the Court’s previous orders and attempt to convince the
Court to grant relief that the Court already declined to grant, Plaintiff must set forth
clear legal authority, convincing arguments, and sufficient explanations of facts and
references.
Instead, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, titled as a “renewed
motion,” does not address appropriate law and is not procedurally correct. Doc. 141.
Plaintiff’s motion for extension does not explain at all why Plaintiff could not have
deposed Evans or Mull before September 2016 when this case has been pending since
November 5, 2014. Docs. 1, 142.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure Directed
at Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Fourth Request for Production (Doc. 141),
construed as a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order (Doc. 118), is
DENIED.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions (Doc.
142) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 16th day of November,
2016.
Copies:
Counsel of record
- 11 -
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?