Brivik v. Law et al

Filing 65

ORDER: Officer Claudia Law's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Unauthorized Amended Complaint 63 is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to strike the Amended Complaint 57 . Plaintiff may re-file the Amended Complaint, absent complaint counts against Officer Law, by April 12, 2012. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 4/3/2012. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MARK BRIVIK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:11-cv-2101-T-33TGW

OFFICER CLAUDIA LAW, ET AL.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Officer
Claudia

Law’s

Motion

to

Strike

Plaintiff’s

Unauthorized

Amended Complaint (Doc. # 63), filed on March 30, 2012.

For

the reasons that follow, the Court grants the Motion.
Discussion
Plaintiff initiated this civil rights action on September
15,

2011,

after

he

was

arrested

on

23

securities

and

securities fraud charges. (Doc. # 1). Plaintiff spent 24 days
in

jail.

The

criminal

approximately 6 months.

charges

were

dropped

after

Plaintiff sues Officer law and

Plaintiff’s six co-investors, who cooperated with Officer Law,
under

42

U.S.C.

prosecution.

§

1983

for

false

arrest

and

malicious

He also sues Defendants for state law false

arrest and malicious prosecution.

Plaintiff alleges that his

reputation has been damaged, that he has experienced emotional
pain and suffering, and that he has incurred financial losses.

Defendants Richard Zimmerman, Steve Murray, Ronald Carr,
and Officer Law filed Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. ## 9, 17, 19,
32).

This Court held a hearing on the Motions to Dismiss on

February 23, 2012. (Doc. # 40).

The Court orally granted

Zimmerman, Murray, and Carr’s Motions to Dismiss without
prejudice and allowed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
against Zimmerman, Murray, and Carr. (Doc. # 41).

The Court

granted Officer Law’s Motion to Dismiss and determined that it
was appropriate to dismiss Officer Law with prejudice based on
the defenses of qualified immunity and sovereign immunity. At
the conclusion of the hearing, the Court directed counsel for
Officer Law to submit a proposed order to the Court reflecting
the Court’s decision to dismiss Officer Law with prejudice.
(Doc. # 40).
Counsel for Officer Law timely submitted his proposed
order to the Court; however, counsel for Plaintiff lodged an
objection to the proposed order.

The parties are currently

embroiled in a dispute concerning the proposed order and,
among other arguments, Plaintiff contends that Officer Law
committed a fraud upon the Court during the February 23, 2012,
hearing.

Officer Law’s submission regarding the proposed

order and the alleged fraud upon the Court is due April 3,
2012, and this Court will address that matter without delay as

2

soon as each party has been fully heard.
The

Court

now

turns

its

attention

to

the

Amended

Complaint filed on March 27, 2012. (Doc. # 57). Despite the
Court’s oral ruling that Officer Law is dismissed from this
action with prejudice, Plaintiff included complaint counts
against Officer Law in the Amended Complaint.
the Court strikes the Amended Complaint.

Accordingly,

Plaintiff may re-

file the Amended Complaint, absent complaint counts against
Officer Law, by April 12, 2012.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Officer

Claudia

Law’s

Motion

to

Strike

Plaintiff’s

Unauthorized Amended Complaint (Doc. # 63) is GRANTED.
The Clerk is directed to strike the Amended Complaint
(Doc. # 57).
(2)

Plaintiff may re-file the Amended Complaint, absent
complaint counts against Officer Law, by April 12, 2012.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 3rd

day of April 2012.

Copies:

All Counsel of Record

3