Parekh v. CBS Corporation et al

Filing 125

ORDER granting 123 Motion to Strike 119 Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement/Present New Evidence in Support of His 59(E) Motion and Clarity on "Second Statement;" 121 Plaintiff's Response to Defendants Memorandum in Opposi tion to Plaintiff's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and Intentional Misconduct by Defendants with Business Relationships to Harass, Oppress and Control the Out Come of this Lawsuit; and 122 Plaintiff's M otion to Supplement/Present New Evidence in Support of His 59(E) Motion and Intentional Misconduct by Defendants with Business Relationships to Harass, Oppress and Control the Out Come of this Lawsuit.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 4/11/2019. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
NIKLESH PAREKH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:18-cv-466-Orl-40TBS

CBS CORPORATION and BRIAN
CONYBEARE,
Defendants.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court without a hearing on Defendants’ Motion to
Strike Plaintiff’s Impermissible Replies (Doc. 123). Plaintiff has filed a response in
opposition to the motion (Doc. 124).

Pro se Plaintiff Niklesh Parekh complained that Defendants CBS Corporation and
Brian Conybeare published a defamatory news report that portrayed him “as a scam or as
a man who lied for money.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 5). The Court granted Defendants’ motion to
dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint after finding that one of Defendants’ statements did “not
concern Parekh or imply any defamatory facts about Parekh,” and the other statement “is
not reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning.” (Doc. 104 at 7-8). The Court also
rejected Plaintiff’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress because it violated
Florida’s single action rule (Id., at 9-10). The Court did not give Plaintiff leave to amend
his complaint, finding that any attempt to amend would be futile (Id., at 10-11). Lastly, the
Court awarded Defendants their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to
Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute, FLA. STAT. § 768.295(3) (Id.). Plaintiff has filed a motion to

alter or amend judgment pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) 1 (Doc. 111). As grounds, he
alleges the availability of new evidence and the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice (Id., at 1). In my view, what the motion really seeks is to reargue the
merits of issues upon which the Court has already ruled.
Defendants filed a motion for the award of their attorney’s fees (Doc. 108), and a
separate motion to reduce to judgment, fee awards they received in discovery disputes
(Doc. 112). These motions were referred to me for report and recommendations. On
February 13, 2019, I recommended that Defendants’ motions be granted and that
judgment in the amount of $139,974.24 be entered for Defendants and against Plaintiff
(Doc. 117). Plaintiff filed a timely objection to my report and recommendations (Doc. 118),
and Defendants have responded to the objections (Doc. 120). After Defendants filed their
response Plaintiff filed an unauthorized reply which repeats much of what he told the
Court in his objections to the report and recommendations (Doc. 121).
Plaintiff has filed a motion to supplement his Rule 59(e) motion (Doc. 119). In the
motion to supplement he takes issue with the Court’s reasons for dismissing the case,
alleges the existence of new evidence, and recounts part of his life story leading up to the
filing of the case (Id.).
Plaintiff has also filed a second motion for leave to supplement his Rule 59(e)
motion (Doc. 122). In the second motion to supplement Plaintiff offers what he says is
new evidence of misconduct on the part of Defendants. Specifically, he alleges that they
interfered with his relationships with the University of Central Florida and the City of
Miami Beach to oppress him and control the outcome of this case (Id., at 1-2). Plaintiff
1 Rule 59 provides grounds for altering or amending a judgment, or granting a new trial. Rule 59(e)
states that the “motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment.”

-2-

also complains about Defendants’ alleged failures to meet, confer, and provide discovery
(Id., at 3-4). Once again Plaintiff recounts part of his life story leading up to the filing of
this case (Id., at 4-14). Plaintiff also repeats arguments he has made before concerning
Defendants’ obligations, that they acted intentionally, that they have lied and deceived,
and that they are attempting to bully him (Id., at 14-15.). Finally, Plaintiff demands an
explanation for their actions from Defendants, asks the Court to review the facts, vacate
the dismissal Order, and give him leave to amend his complaint (Id., at 15-20).
Defendants have motioned the Court to strike Plaintiff’s Motion to
Supplement/Present New Evidence in Support of His 59(E) Motion and Clarity on
“Second Statement” (Doc. 119); Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants Memorandum in
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
and Intentional Misconduct by Defendants with Business Relationships to Harass,
Oppress and Control the Out Come of this Lawsuit (Doc. 121); and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Supplement/Present New Evidence in Support of His 59(E) Motion and Intentional
Misconduct by Defendants with Business Relationships to Harass, Oppress and Control
the Out Come of this Lawsuit (Doc. 122). They argue that all three motions are in fact
replies that were not authorized by this Court, and which do not contain any arguments or
facts that are germane to the issues now before the Court (Doc. 123 at 2). In his
response, Plaintiff counters that Defendants have continually violated this Court’s rules,
and in particular, Local Rule 3.01(g) (Doc. 124 at 1-2).
Local Rule 3.01(c) states that “[n]o party shall file any reply or further
memorandum directed to the motion or response allowed in (a) and (b) unless the Court
grants leave.” There is nothing inherently wrong with a motion to supplement that is
intended to bring to the Court’s attention new information, be it evidence or law, that was

-3-

not previously available, and which may assist the Court in reaching the right decision in
a case. But Plaintiff’s motions do not supply information that is new or pertinent to the
issues before the Court. Instead, Plaintiff repeats allegations and arguments the Court
has heard and before and found lacking. It is as if Plaintiff thinks that if he says the same
things enough times, he will ultimately achieve a different result. But that is not the
purpose of a motion to supplement (or for that matter, a reply).
The district court may “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f). District
courts have broad discretion in making this determination. Id.; Honus Wagner Co. v.
Luminary Grp. LLC, No. 17-cv-61317-BLOOM/Valle, 2017 WL 6547899, at *4 (S.D. Fla.
Dec. 21, 2017). When it evaluates a motion to strike, the court “must treat all well pleaded
facts as admitted and cannot consider matters beyond the pleadings.” Florida Software
Systems v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., No. 97-2866-cv-T-17B, 1999 WL 781812, at
*1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 1999). Motions to strike are generally disfavored and are often
considered “time wasters.” Somerset Pharm., Inc. v. Kimball, 168 F.R.D. 69, 71 (M.D. Fla.
1996). “A motion to strike will usually be denied unless the allegations have no possible
relation to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties.” Harty v.
SRA/Palm Trails Plaza, LLC, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1218 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (internal
quotation and citation omitted). Striking all or part of a pleading is a “drastic remedy to be
resorted to only when required for the purposes of justice.” Jackson v. Grupo Indu.
Hotelero, S.A., No. 07-22046-CIV, 2008 WL 4648999, at *14 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2008)
(internal quotation marks omitted). A motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) must be
made “before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days

-4-

after being served with the pleading.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f)(2). Defendant’s pending motion
to strike, if filed pursuant to Rule 12(f), would have properly been denied as untimely.
The Court did not authorize the filing of Plaintiff’s motions to supplement or his
response in opposition to Defendants’ response to his objections to the report and
recommendations. And, these papers do not assist the Court in resolving any pending
issues. To the contrary, they waste the Court’s time in having to read assertions and
arguments it has heard before. Therefore, the motion to strike is GRANTED, and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement/Present New Evidence in Support of His 59(E) Motion
and Clarity on “Second Statement” (Doc. 119); Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants
Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation and Intentional Misconduct by Defendants with Business Relationships
to Harass, Oppress and Control the Out Come of this Lawsuit (Doc. 121); and Plaintiff’s
Motion to Supplement/Present New Evidence in Support of His 59(E) Motion and
Intentional Misconduct by Defendants with Business Relationships to Harass, Oppress
and Control the Out Come of this Lawsuit (Doc. 122) are STRICKEN from the docket.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 11, 2019.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Pro se Plaintiff

-5-