Omni Healthcare Inc. et al v. Health First, Inc. et al
Filing
379
ORDER denying without prejudice 378 Motion for Order Authorizing Distribution of Undisputed Net Settlement Proceeds. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 3/8/2017. (VMF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
OMNI HEALTHCARE INC.;
INTERVENTIONAL SPINE INSTITUTE
OF FLORIDA; CRAIG DELIGDISH;
C. HAMILTON BOONE, PA; BRIAN
DOWDELL; RICHARD GAYLES; STAN
GOLOVAC; LANCE GRENEVICKI;
ALEKSANDER KOMAR; SCOTT
SEMINER; INSTITUTE OF FACIAL
SURGERY INC.; THE PAIN INSTITUTE
INC.; and PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT
SERVICES OF FLORIDA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 6:13-cv-1509-Orl-37DCI
HEALTH FIRST, INC.; HOLMES
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.;
HEALTH FIRST PHYSICIANS, INC.;
HEALTH FIRST HEALTH PLANS,
INC.; MICHAEL D. MEANS; and
JERRY SENNE,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
ORDER
The present action has devolved into a protracted dispute over the allocation of
settlement proceeds between two sets of Plaintiffs—the Omni Plaintiffs 1 and the Boone
Plaintiffs. 2 In the instant motion, the Omni Plaintiffs request a Court Order authorizing
Omni Healthcare Inc., Interventional Spine Institute of Florida, Craig Deligdish,
Brian Dowdell, Richard Gayles, Stan Golovac, Scott Seminer, and The Pain Institute Inc.
2 C. Hamilton Boone, Lance Grenevicki, Alexander Komar, the Institute of Facial
Surgery, Inc., and Physician Assistant Services of Florida, LLC.
1
-1-
distribution of undisputed net settlement proceeds. (Doc. 378.) Ironically, the Omni
Plaintiffs’ Local Rule 3.01(g) certification reveals that the characterization of this amount
as “undisputed” remains uncertain. (See id. at 6.) In particular, the Omni Plaintiffs
represent that they have been unable to meet and confer with Adam Levine, counsel for
the Boone Plaintiffs, despite repeated efforts over three business days. (Id.)
As counsel are well aware, Local Rule 3.01(g) provides that:
[b]efore filing any motion in a civil case . . . the moving party
shall confer with counsel for the opposing party in a good
faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion, and shall
file with the motion a statement (1) certifying that the moving
counsel has conferred with opposing counsel and (2) stating
whether counsel agree on the resolution of the motion. A
certification to the effect that the opposing counsel was
unavailable for a conference before filing a motion is
insufficient to satisfy the parties’ obligation to confer.
Additionally, pursuant to the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order
(“CMSO”), counsel for the nonmoving party is obligated “to respond promptly to
inquiries and communications from opposing counsel.” (Doc. 59, p. 17.)
But neither counsel for the Omni Plaintiffs nor counsel for the Boone Plaintiffs
have complied with their obligations under Local Rule 3.01(g) and the CMSO. Such
failure is significant because whether the settlement funds requested are truly
uncontested will be a critical component in the Court’s consideration of the present
motion. While the Court is cognizant of the Omni Plaintiffs’ efforts to confer, the proper
recourse under the circumstances would have been to request relief from the Court for
opposing counsel’s failure to respond to their meet-and-confer requests—not to file a
motion in blatant noncompliance with the Local Rules.
-2-
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.
The Omni Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Authorizing Distribution of
Undisputed Net Settlement Proceeds and Incorporated Memorandum of
Law (Doc. 378) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If the Omni Plaintiffs
choose to refile such motion, they must fully comply with Local
Rule 3.01(g).
2.
Adam Levine, counsel for the Boone Plaintiffs, is DIRECTED to
substantively respond to the Omni Plaintiffs’ meet-and-confer requests on
or before Friday, March 10, 2017.
3.
All parties are forewarned that continued noncompliance with the Local
Rules and Orders of this Court may result in sanctions.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on March 8, 2017.
Copies to:
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?