Unlimited Resources Incorporated v. Deployed Resources, LLC et al

Filing 106

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 95 MOTION for sanctions, 102 MOTION to strike, and 103 MOTION to extend time to respond to Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 4/27/2009. (MOH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION UNLIMITED RESOURCES INCORPORATED, a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. DEPLOYED RESOURCES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; RICHARD STAPLETON; ROBB NAPIOR; MICHAEL FRISCH; JOHN DOE; and JANE DOE, currently unknown individuals or entities, Defendants. _____________________________________/ Case No. 3:07-cv-961-J-12MCR

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 95), Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. 102), and Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 103). On April 15, 2009, Judge Melton entered an Order referring Defendant's Motion for Sanctions to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 99). The undersigned has reviewed the Motion for Sanctions and believes that in light of the Court's Order permitting Plaintiff to file an amended complaint (Doc. 104) and the fact that Defendant's Motion for Sanctions would require the Court to essentially make a summary judgment determination, it is best to deny the motion at this time. The undersigned believes a Rule 11 motion would best be considered at the conclusion of
Any party may file and serve specific, written objections hereto with TEN (10) DAYS after service of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to do so shall bar the party from a de novo determination by a district judge of an issue covered herein and from attacking factual findings on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), 6(a) and (e); Local Rules 6.02(a) and 4.20, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
1

the litigation. See Donaldson v. Clark, 819 F.2d 1551, 1555 (11th Cir. 1987) (Rule 11 sanctions based on the factual adequacy of a complaint are best considered at the end of litigation). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 95) be denied without prejudice and Defendant be permitted to re-file such a motion at the conclusion of this litigation.2 Additionally, Plaintiff's Motions to Strike (Doc. 102) and for Extension of Time (Doc. 103) should be denied as moot in light of the foregoing. After due consideration, it is RECOMMENDED: 1. prejudice. 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. 102) and Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 95) be DENIED without

Time (Doc. 103) be DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ENTERED in Chambers in Jacksonville, Florida this 27th day of April, 2009.

MONTE C. RICHARDSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This ruling should not be interpreted as indicative of the Court's opinion either way on whether Rule 11 sanctions are appropriate. Plaintiff and its attorney should anticipate the issue of Rule 11 sanctions in the future and govern themselves accordingly.
-2-

2

Copies to: Howell W. Melton, United States District Judge Counsel of Record

-3-