Dodd v. Matthews

Filing 58

ORDER: Plaintiff Brian Dodd's Motion titled "Joint Stipulated Consent to ADR / Mediation with Request to Stay" 49 and his Motion for Sanctions 54 are DENIED. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 6/19/2013. (LRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
BRIAN DODD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:12-cv-2054-T-33TGW

KELLY MATTHEWS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to pro se
Plaintiff

Brian

Dodd’s

Motion

titled

“Joint

Stipulated

Consent to ADR / Mediation with Request to Stay,” filed
April 25, 2013. (Doc. # 49). Defendant Mary Anne Dodd, also
proceeding in this action pro se, joined Plaintiff in the
Motion.

(Id.).

Defendants

Webdiva

Technologies,

LLC,

Kelly

Matthews,

Christopher

Alex

Layne,

Oroza,

Andrew

Penczner, and Human Element Productions, LLC responded in
opposition to the Motion on April 29, 2013. (Doc. # 50).
Pro se Defendant Thomas Dodd has failed to file a response
to the Motion.
Also
Sanctions

before

the

Court

against

Defendant

is

Plaintiff’s

Thomas

Dodd,

Motion

filed

May

for
13,

2013. (Doc. # 54). Defendant Thomas Dodd has not responded

to the Motion.

For the reasons stated below, the Court

denies both Motions.
I.

“Joint Stipulated
Request to Stay”
In

Dodd

their

state

Consent

Motion,

that

to

Plaintiff

they

“consent

ADR

and
to

/

Mediation

Defendant

ADR

/

Mary

mediation”

with
Anne
and

“consent to a temporary stay . . . pending completion of
the parties[’] ADR/ mediation.” (Doc. # 49 at 1, 2). To the
extent that Plaintiff and Defendant Mary Anne Dodd intend
this Motion to serve as a request that the Court refer the
case to mediation, the Motion is denied as moot. The Court
has already referred this action to mediation (Doc. # 47 at
2), and after twice directing the parties to file a notice
regarding the selection of a mediator and the scheduling of
mediation,

the

Court

sua

sponte

Esq., as mediator in this action

appointed

Peter

Grilli,

(Doc. # 57).

Plaintiff and Defendant Mary Anne Dodd also request
that the Court stay this case pending the completion of
mediation. The Court declines to grant a stay. This action
has been pending for more than nine months. While the Court
encourages the parties

to

mediate in good faith and to

fully and faithfully explore every settlement opportunity,
the

Court

is

unwilling

to

impede

2

the

progress

of

this

matter simply because it is possible that mediation may
result in settlement. The Court “must take an active role
in

managing

cases

on

[its]

docket.”

Chudasama

v.

Mazda

Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997).

As

stated in Chudasama, this Court enjoys broad discretion “in
deciding how best to manage the cases before [it]” and,
under the circumstances of this case, the Court determines
that it is appropriate to deny the Motion.
II.

Motion for Sanctions
Plaintiff

moves

the

Court

to

impose

sanctions

on

Defendant Thomas Dodd “for frivolous filing of pleadings[,]
in repetition [and] without leave, . . . in violation of”
the Court’s April 11, 2013, Order, and for “failure to file
disclosures but conduct[ing] discovery in violation of” the
Case Management and Scheduling Order. (Doc. # 54 at 1).
The

Court

acknowledges

that

Defendant

Thomas

Dodd

did, indeed, file a document on May 8, 2013, after the
Court instructed him on April 11, 2013, to “seek leave of
Court to amend before filing any additional amendments to
his Answer.” (Doc. # 45). However, in light of Defendant
Thomas

Dodd’s

pro

se

status,

the

Court

construed

the

document (Doc. # 53) as a supplement to his Second Amended
Answer (Doc. # 41).

3

“Courts

have

the

inherent

authority

to

control

the

proceedings before them, which includes the authority to
impose

reasonable

and

appropriate

sanctions.”

Martin

v.

Automobili Lamborghini Exclusive, Inc., 307 F.3d 1332, 1335
(11th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). “In order to exercise
its inherent power to award sanctions, the court must find
that a party acted in bad faith.” Meidinger v. Healthcare
Indus. Oligopoly, 391 F. App'x 777, 780 (11th Cir. 2010).
While the Court certainly expects Defendant Thomas Dodd to
comply

with

the

Court’s

reason

to

believe

that

instructions,
Defendant

the

Thomas

Court

Dodd

has

filed

no
the

document in bad faith. Even if the document was intended as
a

Third

Amended

Answer

such

that

leave

of

Court

was

therefore required, the Court finds that sanctions are not
warranted for pro se Defendant Thomas Dodd’s filing of a
single document without leave.
Furthermore, Plaintiff also moves the Court to impose
sanctions

against

Defendant

Thomas

Dodd

for

his

alleged

failure to participate in discovery. However, as Plaintiff
has not yet filed a motion to compel discovery, imposing
sanctions for discovery violations would be premature. As
such, the Motion for Sanctions is denied.

4

Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff may intend
his

Motion

for

Sanctions

to

also

serve

as

a

motion

to

compel discovery, such Motion would then include more than
one request for relief. However, Plaintiff is advised that
each

request

for

relief

should

be

filed

as

a

separate

motion, each containing a concise statement of the precise
relief requested, in accordance with the Local Rules of
this Court. Thus, if Plaintiff intends to move the Court to
compel discovery, he should do so in a separate motion and
in compliance with all Federal and Local Rules, including
Local

Rule

3.04(a)

in

particular,

governing

motions

to

compel.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiff Brian Dodd’s Motion titled “Joint Stipulated
Consent to ADR / Mediation with Request to Stay” (Doc. #
49) and his Motion for Sanctions (Doc. # 54) are DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
19th day of June, 2013.

5

Copies:

All Parties and Counsel of Record

6