Porter v. The City of Port Orange et al
ORDER denying 84 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 8/7/2017. (VMF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6:16-cv-1379-Orl-37DCI
On June 5, 2017, Defendant moved for summary judgment on the claims asserted
against her. (Doc. 82 (“MSJ”).) When Plaintiff failed to respond to the MSJ as set forth in
the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order (“CMSO”), the Court directed
Plaintiff to file a responsive memorandum on or before July 28, 2017 (“Response
Deadline”). (Doc. 83.) Plaintiff failed to comply. Instead, nearly a week after the Response
Deadline, Plaintiff filed a motion that purports to respond to the MSJ and requests that
the Court impose sanctions against Defendant’s counsel because the MSJ is frivolous and
unjustly enriches counsel. (Doc. 84 (“Sanctions Motion”).) 1
To the extent Plaintiff employs the Sanctions Motion as a response to the MSJ it is
untimely. Plaintiff was given two opportunities to respond to the MSJ and, without
explanation, failed to do so. Hence the Court declines to consider the arguments set forth
The Court finds it unnecessary to await Defendant’s response to the Sanctions
in the Sanctions Motion once it takes the MSJ under advisement on August 9, 2017. 2 (See
Doc. 83, p. 2.)
As for Plaintiff’s sanctions request, it is a thinly-veiled attempt to exact retribution
for his own failure. His arguments find no basis in fact or law. The mere act of filing a
summary judgment motion, in and of itself, is not frivolous, nor does it unjustly enrich
Defendant’s counsel. Indeed, the CMSO contemplates such an action. (Doc. 59, p. 9.)
Moreover, sanctions are not warranted simply because Plaintiff finds Defendant’s MSJ
arguments objectionable. Plaintiff could have challenged the MSJ by filing a timely
response or sought an extension of the Response Deadline. See Local Rule 3.09(a). 3
Plaintiff did neither. As such, the Court declines to impose sanctions and finds that the
Sanctions Motion is due to be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Sanctions (Doc. 84) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on August 7, 2017.
from being untimely, the Sanctions Motion does not comport with the
CMSO’s requirements for a response to an MSJ. (Doc. 59, p. 9.) At a minimum, a
responding party must identify material facts that create genuine issues for trial with
pinpoint citations to the record evidence. (Id.)
3 Plaintiff also fails to certify that he conferred with Defendant’s counsel prior to
filing the Sanctions Motion as required by Local Rule 3.01(g).
Counsel of Record
Pro se Party
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?