Carruega v. MP 3 Construction Services, LLC et al

Filing 41

OPINION AND ORDER denying 30 Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 1/6/2017. (RKR)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION LORENZO CARRUEGA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:16-cv-421-FtM-99CM MP 3 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company and JOSE MENDOZA, individually, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (Doc. #30) filed on August 31, 2016. filed a response (Doc. #34) on September 14, 2016. Defendants For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied. On September 1, 2016, the Court entered an Opinion and Order denying defendants’ Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions without prejudice to filing a renewed motion if it becomes clear that the allegation that plaintiff was an employee had no reasonable basis in law or fact, and unsupported. that plaintiff (Doc. #33.) knew that Amended Complaint was Plaintiff now files his own Rule 11 motion, arguing that defendants’ Rule 11 motion was frivolous because the evidence shows that plaintiff was an employee of defendants. Rule 11 authorizes a court to sanction a party who files a pleading in bad faith for an improper purpose. Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1514 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). “[T]he filing of a motion for sanctions is itself subject to the requirements of the rule and can lead to sanctions.” Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc., 750 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 advisory committee’s note). “Ordinarily, this does not require a cross-motion for sanctions, since a court is authorized to award fees to successfully opposes a Rule 11 sanctions motion.” a party that Id. In his opposition to defendants’ Rule 11 motion, plaintiff argued that defendants’ Rule 11 motion was frivolous and requested his attorney’s fees incurred in responding to the motion. #24.) (Doc. Plaintiff’s Rule 11 motion is essentially a cross-motion for sanctions and nothing new presented to the Court supports the imposition of sanctions. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (Doc. #30) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this January, 2017. - 2 - 6th day of Copies: Counsel of Record - 3 -

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?