Gilberti v. Welling et al

Filing 22

ORDER: Defendants' Motion for Sanctions for Professional Misconduct 20 is DENIED. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 12/17/2013. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

NANCY GILBERTI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:13-cv-821-T-30EAJ

NANCY WELLING and DAVID
WELLING,
Defendants.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions
for Professional Misconduct (Dkt. #20) and Counsel’s Response in Opposition to the
Motion (Dkt. #21).
This Motion is Defendants’ third attempt to have the Court impose sanctions on
Plaintiff’s counsel. In this Court’s October 28, 2013 Order (Dkt. #13), the Court denied the
two previous Motions for Sanctions (Dkts. #15 and 17). The Order indicated that
The Defendants did not comply with Local Rule 3.01(a) in that they did not
include any case law in support of their request for sanctions. They also failed
to comply with Rule 3.01(g) in that they did not include a statement that they
conferred with opposing counsel before filing the motions and whether
opposing counsel agreed with the relief requested. To the extent that
Defendants move for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Defendants failed to serve the Motion to counsel requesting
withdrawal of the Renewed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings before
filing the Motions for Sanctions with the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

The Defendants have failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Local Rules for the Middle District of Florida in this Motion. The Eleventh Circuit
has held that “[p]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted
by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Woodburn v. State of Florida
Dept. of Children & Family Services, 854 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1193 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (citing
Shuler v. Ingram & Assocs., 441 Fed. Appx. 712, 717 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Boxer
X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006)). However, pro se litigants must still
follow the court’s procedural rules. Id. at 1194.
Further, the Defendants do not state any factual basis for their request for sanctions
except to state that Plaintiff’s attorney Paul R. Fowkes “misused the Court system to our
detriment, even after his client died.” Therefore, the Court has no basis to even construe
the Motion to determine under what legal premise the Court should consider imposing
sanctions.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion for
Sanctions for Professional Misconduct (Dkt. #20) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 17th day of December, 2013.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Odd\2013\13-cv-821 sanctions 20.docx

2