Bernath v. Seavey
Filing
211
ORDER denying 151 "1. Motion to Strike Answer by Mark Seavey and Legion 2. Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint by Mark Seavey and Legion 3. And revoke pro hac vice status of attorney John D. Mason"; denying as moot 159 "Plaintiff h ereby makes a motion to Strike so called 'Dispositive' Motions and Oppositions to Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Motions As Defendants and cross complainants Legion and Seavey continue to Disobey Court's Order Request that pro hac v ice attorney Mason be dismissed Request US attorney be referred these multiple perjury crimes by defendants Legion and Seavey and pro hac vice attorney John D. Mason"; denying 183 "Motion to File Response to Defendants' Opposition to Strike Legion and Seavey's Answer and Cross Complaint And revoke pro hac vice status for Fraud upon the Court As defendants have made a personal attack on me And to show professional opinion of retained counsel for Plaintiff"; denying [184 ] "Motion to Strike Answer and Cross Complaint of Legion and Seavey for Repeated Refusal to Follow Court Orders Regarding Seavey and Legion's 'Filing...for leave to file...in response in opposition to plaintiff's motion to quash s ubpoena and protective order"; denying 186 Motion to Strike Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Motion to Strike Seavey and Legion's Answer and Cross-Complaint for refusal to obey Court Orders"; denying 189 & quot;Motion to File Reply to Motions to Strike Answer and Cross-Complaint of Legion and Seavey and Revoke pro hac vice status of John D. Mason for continued perjury to this Court And defendants and Mason's refusals to follow this Court's Or ders"; denying 193 "Motion to Strike Mark Cameron Seavey and American Legion Answers and Cross-complaints, Remove John D. Mason from pro hac vice status and Strike two motions for summary judgment for Defendant Seavey and Defendant American Legion's continued contempt of the court's orders, perjury and obstruction of justice." Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 5/4/2017. (LS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DANIEL A. BERNATH,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:15-cv-358-FtM-99CM
MARK CAMERON SEAVEY,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of the following motions filed
by Plaintiff:
•
“1. Motion to Strike Answer by Mark Seavey and Legion 2. Motion to
Strike Cross-Complaint by Mark Seavey and Legion 3. And revoke pro
hac vice status of attorney John D. Mason” (“First Motion to Strike,”
Doc. 151) filed on February 16, 2017, and Defendants’ response (Doc.
173);
•
“Plaintiff hereby makes a motion to Strike so called ‘Dispositive’ Motions
and Oppositions to Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motions As
Defendants and cross complainants Legion and Seavey continue to
Disobey Court’s Order Request that pro hac vice attorney Mason be
dismissed Request US attorney be referred these multiple perjury
crimes by defendants Legion and Seavey and pro hac vice attorney John
D. Mason” (“Second Motion to Strike,” Doc. 159) filed on February 21,
2017, and Defendants’ response (Doc. 175);
•
“Motion to File Response to Defendants’ Opposition to Strike Legion and
Seavey’s Answer and Cross Complaint And revoke pro hac vice status
for Fraud upon the Court As defendants have made a personal attack
on me And to show professional opinion of retained counsel for Plaintiff”
(“First Motion to File a Reply,” Doc. 183) filed on March 13, 2017, and
Defendants’ response (Doc. 199);
•
“Motion to Strike Answer and Cross Complaint of Legion and Seavey for
Repeated Refusal to Follow Court Orders Regarding Seavey and
Legion’s ‘Filing…for leave to file…in response in opposition to plaintiff’s
motion to quash subpoena and protective order.” (“Third Motion to
Strike,” Doc. 184) filed on March 13, 2017, and Defendants’ response
(Doc. 201);
•
•
“Motion to File Reply to Motions to Strike Answer and Cross-Complaint
of Legion and Seavey and Revoke pro hac vice status of John D. Mason
for continued perjury to this Court And defendants and Mason’s refusals
to follow this Court’s Orders” (“Second Motion to File a Reply,” Doc. 189)
filed on March 14, 2017, and Defendants’ response (Doc. 199);
•
I.
“Motion to Strike Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order
Motion to Strike Seavey and Legion’s Answer and Cross-Complaint for
refusal to obey Court Orders” (“Fourth Motion to Strike,” Doc. 186) filed
on March 13, 2017, and Defendants’ response (Doc. 201);
“Motion to Strike Mark Cameron Seavey and American Legion Answers
and Cross-complaints, Remove John D. Mason from pro hac vice status
and Strike two motions for summary judgment for Defendant Seavey
and Defendant American Legion’s continued contempt of the court’s
orders, perjury and obstruction of justice” (“Fifth Motion to Strike,” Doc.
193) filed on March 17, 2017, and Defendants’ response (Doc. 204).
Discussion
a. Plaintiff’s First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Motions to Strike (Docs.
151; 184; 186; 193)
Plaintiff Daniel Bernath seeks to strike Defendant Mark Cameron Seavey’s
(“Seavey”) Answer to First Amended Complaint and First Amended Counterclaims
(“Answer and Counterclaims,” Doc. 31) and Defendant The American Legion’s (“The
Legion”) Answer and Counterclaims (Doc. 69). Doc. 151 at 1. Defendant further
seeks to revoke the pro hac vice admission of Defendants’ counsel, John D. Mason.
Id.
This is not Plaintiff’s first or last attempt in seeking to strike Defendants’
answers and counterclaims. See Docs. 23; 24; 25; 35; 38; 48; 116; 142; 159; 184; 186.
-2-
Pursuant to Rule 12(f), the court may strike from a pleading “any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
The court
enjoys broad discretion in determining whether to grant or deny a motion to strike.
Gibson v. Monaco Coach Corp., No. 2:06-cv-146-FTM-29DNF, 2006 WL 2092640, at
*3 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2006). The court, however, will not exercise its discretion
“unless the matter sought to be omitted has no possible relationship to the
controversy, may confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party.”
Reyher v.
Trans World Airlines, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 574, 576 (M.D. Fla. 1995) (citations omitted).
Based on a review of Seavey’s Answer and Counterclaims (Doc. 31) and The
Legion’s Answer and Counterclaims (Doc. 69), the Court finds that these pleadings
have a “possible relationship to the controversy,” that they are not likely to confuse
the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party. Additionally, the Court previously has
entertained motions by Plaintiff seeking to strike Defendants’ Answers and
Counterclaims and has denied such relief. See Doc. 35; 48; 116, 142.
Although Plaintiff’s First Motion to Strike does not meet the Rule 12(f)
standard, Plaintiff also requests such relief as a form of sanction pursuant to Rule 11
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants and their
counsel have committed perjury and fraud upon the Court by submitting false
affidavits to the Court. Doc. 151 at 1-2. A court may impose Rule 11 sanctions “(1)
when a party files a pleading that has no reasonable factual basis; (2) when the party
files a pleading that is based on a legal theory that has no reasonable chance of
success and that cannot be advanced as a reasonable argument to change existing
-3-
law; and (3) when the party files a pleading in bad faith for an improper purpose.”
Jones v. Int’l Riding Helmets, Ltd., 49 F.3d 692, 694 (11th Cir. 1995) (citation
omitted).
“Rule 11 sanctions are designed to discourage dilatory or abusive tactics and
help to streamline the litigation process by lessening frivolous claims or defenses.”
Massengale v. Ray, 267 F.3d 1298, 1302 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
The Eleventh Circuit has noted that “[s]anctions are
warranted when a party exhibits a ‘deliberate indifference to obvious facts,’ but not
when the party’s evidence to support a claim is ‘merely weak.’” Riccard v. Prudential
Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1294 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d
516, 524 (11th Cir.1998)). When a party believes that Rule 11 has been violated, it
must afford the offending party twenty-one days in which to correct the violation,
after which time it may move the court to impose sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).
First, Plaintiff’s motion is due to be denied for failure to comply with the Rule’s
requirements. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2); see also e.g., BCJJ, LLC v. LeFevre, No.
8:09-CV-551-T-17EAJ, 2012 WL 3262866, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2012). Second,
nothing in Plaintiff’s motion substantiates his allegations of perjury and fraud upon
the Court by Defendants or their counsel. Plaintiff does not cite the affidavits to
which he refers except states that they were filed on February 9, 2017 and February
15, 2017. On February 9, 2017, however, there were three motions for summary
judgments filed with more than fifty exhibits combined, totaling over one thousand
-4-
pages. See Docs. 136; 137; 138. On February 15, 2017, Defendants did not file any
motions or affidavits with the Court.
Plaintiff’s allegations appear to stem from statements in Defendants’ then
pending motion for summary judgment that “Seavey does not act as an agent for the
Legion, or on the Legion’s behalf in any fashion when he writes articles in his free
time at http://thisainthell.us. . .” and that “Seavey periodically writes articles at the
Blog in his own spare time separate from his employment with the Legion. . .” Doc.
151 at 4-5. Plaintiff avers that these statements are untrue and perjurious. Id. at
1-12. Aside from what appears to be copied and pasted text from other sources to
Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims
of perjury and fraud upon the Court.
Plaintiff’s document titled “Additional
Evidence of Mark Seavey, Phil Onderdonk and Legion perjury For Motion to Strike
Answer and Cross Complaints of Seavey and Legion for Fraud upon Court and
perjury” (Doc. 162) does not overcome this insufficiency. Accordingly, this motion is
due to be denied.
For the same reasons, Plaintiff’s request to revoke attorney
Mason’s pro hac vice admission is denied.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Strike (Doc. 184), Fourth Motion to
Strike (Doc. 186), and Fifth Motion to Strike (Doc. 193) are due to be denied.
Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendants’ pleadings based on the premise that Defendants
have failed to comply with Court orders; however, the motions are largely identical,
difficult to comprehend, and lack specificity. See Docs. 184; 186. Accordingly, these
motions also will be denied.
-5-
b. Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Strike (Doc. 159)
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Strike was filed on February 21, 2017 and seeks
to strike Defendants’ motions for summary judgment that were then pending. Docs.
159; 137; 138; 139.
Two days after Plaintiff filed the instant motion, the Court
denied without prejudice Defendants’ motions for summary judgment.
Doc. 163.
Accordingly, the instant motion is denied as moot.
c. Plaintiff’s First Motion to File a Reply (Doc. 183) and Second Motion
to File a Reply (Doc. 189)
On March 3, 2017, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s First Motion to
Strike. Doc. 173. In his First Motion to File a Reply, Plaintiff seeks to file a reply
to Defendants’ response on the basis that he has retained counsel in Virginia. Doc.
183. Plaintiff represents that his counsel is “outraged” at the facts of this case and
presents his counsel’s position regarding Defendants’ alleged perjury and fraud upon
the Court.
Id. at 2.
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to File a Reply is essentially
substantively the same.
“The purpose of a reply brief is to rebut any new law or facts contained in the
opposition’s response to a request for relief before the Court.” Tardif v. People for
Ethical Treatment of Animals, No. 2:09-cv-537-FtM-29SPC, 2011 WL 2729145, at *2
(M.D. Fla. July 13, 2011). “While parties may ask for leave to file a reply, they must
show good cause.” McDonald v. United States, No. 3:13-cv-168-J-37MCR, 2013 WL
3901871, at *1 n.3 (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2013). The Court accepts and considered
Plaintiff’s motions as his replies, and does not find good cause to require any
additional briefing at this time.
-6-
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. “1. Motion to Strike Answer by Mark Seavey and Legion 2. Motion to Strike
Cross-Complaint by Mark Seavey and Legion 3. And revoke pro hac vice
status of attorney John D. Mason” (Doc. 151) is DENIED;
2. “Plaintiff hereby makes a motion to Strike so called ‘Dispositive’ Motions
and Oppositions to Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motions As Defendants
and cross complainants Legion and Seavey continue to Disobey Court’s
Order Request that pro hac vice attorney Mason be dismissed Request US
attorney be referred these multiple perjury crimes by defendants Legion
and Seavey and pro hac vice attorney John D. Mason” (Doc. 159) is DENIED
as moot;
3. “Motion to File Response to Defendants’ Opposition to Strike Legion and
Seavey’s Answer and Cross Complaint And revoke pro hac vice status for
Fraud upon the Court As defendants have made a personal attack on me
And to show professional opinion of retained counsel for Plaintiff” (Doc. 183)
is DENIED;
4. “Motion to Strike Answer and Cross Complaint of Legion and Seavey for
Repeated Refusal to Follow Court Orders Regarding Seavey and Legion’s
‘Filing…for leave to file…in response in opposition to plaintiff’s motion to
quash subpoena and protective order” (Doc. 184) is DENIED;
-7-
5. “Motion to Strike Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order
Motion to Strike Seavey and Legion’s Answer and Cross-Complaint for
refusal to obey Court Orders” (Doc. 186) is DENIED;
6. “Motion to File Reply to Motions to Strike Answer and Cross-Complaint of
Legion and Seavey and Revoke pro hac vice status of John D. Mason for
continued perjury to this Court And defendants and Mason’s refusals to
follow this Court’s Orders” (Doc. 189) is DENIED;
7. “Motion to Strike Mark Cameron Seavey and American Legion Answers
and Cross-complaints, Remove John D. Mason from pro hac vice status and
Strike two motions for summary judgment for Defendant Seavey and
Defendant American Legion’s continued contempt of the court’s orders,
perjury and obstruction of justice” (Doc. 193) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 4th day of May, 2017.
Copies:
Counsel of record
-8-
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?