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)

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 -