Blunt v. Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc.

Filing 38

ORDER: The Court declines to enter sanctions against Plaintiff or her counsel at this time. The Court will issue an Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 10/2/2017. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
PRISCILLA BLUNT, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO: 8:16-CV-2430-T-30MAP

FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Response to Order to Show
Cause (Dkt. 35) and Defendant’s Response thereto (Dkt. 37). The Court, upon review of the
filings, and being otherwise advised in the premises, declines to enter sanctions at this time.
DISCUSSION
On June 13, 2017, Plaintiff Priscilla Blunt filed a “Notice of Plaintiff’s Acceptance
of Defendant’s Rule 68 Offer of Judgment.” (Dkt. 27). On June 14, 2017, the Court, in
reliance on Plaintiff’s Notice, entered a 60-Day Order of Dismissal. (Dkt. 28). The 60-Day
Order stated, in relevant part, that the parties had 60 days to file a “stipulated form of final
order or judgment should they so choose,” or, during that same period of time, either party
could move to reopen the action “upon good cause shown.” The 60-Day Order further
instructed that after the “60-day period,” dismissal would be “with prejudice.” (Dkt. 28).

On August 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees. (Dkt. 29). The next
day, on August 11, 2017, the Court denied the Motion for its failure to comply with Local
Rule 3.01(g).1 The Court also noted that the Motion seemed premature because the parties
had not provided the Court with a stipulated final judgment. (Dkt. 30).
On August 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a one-page letter to the Court that was stricken
because it did not comply with the Court’s Local Rules to the extent that it was not a motion,
did not contain a legal memorandum, and, once again, did not contain a certificate of
conference as required under Local Rule 3.01(g). (Dkt. 31).
On August 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees and represented that
she had accepted Defendant’s Offer of Judgment in the amount of $1,050, but that the parties
were unable to come to an agreement on an amount of attorney’s fees and costs. (Dkt. 32).
On September 1, 2017, Defendant filed its Response in Opposition and Request for
Sanctions. (Dkt. 33). Defendant states that Plaintiff did not timely accept the Offer of
Judgment. Specifically, Defendant claims that the Offer of Judgment was deemed withdrawn
because Plaintiff did not accept it during the fourteen-day deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 68
(“If, within 14 days after being served, the opposing party serves written notice accepting the
offer, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The
clerk must then enter judgment.”) (emphasis added). A review of the documents attached
to Defendant’s Response makes clear that Plaintiff’s acceptance was untimely.

1

Local Rule 3.01(g) requires the moving party to include a statement that moving
counsel has conferred with opposing counsel and whether the motion is opposed.
-2-

Notably, Defendant’s Response attaches an e-mail Defendant’s counsel sent to
Plaintiff’s counsel on June 15, 2017, informing Plaintiff’s counsel that the acceptance was
untimely. The e-mail states that there is no agreement between the parties for settlement
because the Offer of Judgment was “no longer in existence at the time of acceptance” and
that the parties “need to move forward with moving the Court to re-open the action for
litigation based on the invalid Notice of Acceptance.” (Dkt. 33-2). As outlined above,
despite this e-mail, Plaintiff filed the August 10, 2017 Motion for Attorney’s Fees and
continued to represent that the only remaining issue was the Court’s determination of a
reasonable amount for attorney’s fees and costs.
Defendant’s Response also attaches a second e-mail that Defendant’s counsel sent to
Plaintiff’s counsel on August 16, 2017—two days before Plaintiff’s most recent Motion
claiming that the Offer of Judgment was timely accepted—informing Plaintiff’s counsel that
his actions have been “improper” because Plaintiff’s counsel is “absolutely aware” that the
Notice of Acceptance Plaintiff filed with the Court is “bogus.” (Dkt. 33-3).
Upon review of this record, the Court concluded that Plaintiff had been disingenuous
with this Court. The Court noted that Plaintiff’s filings had continuously maintained that
there was a valid acceptance of Defendant’s Offer of Judgment and that the only remaining
issue to be resolved was an award of attorney’s fees and costs. The Court pointed out that
Plaintiff’s misrepresentations made a mockery of the Court, wasted judicial resources, and
unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied this proceeding. The Court ordered Plaintiff to

-3-

show cause in writing as to why sanctions should not be entered against Plaintiff and/or
Plaintiff’s counsel for these repeated misrepresentations. (Dkt. 34).
In her response to the Court’s order to show cause, Plaintiff maintains that she
believed a settlement had been reached with Defendant. Plaintiff attaches e-mails between
Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel that reveal that Defendant continued to make
settlement offers to Plaintiff after the expiration of the Offer of Judgment. But Plaintiff does
not adequately explain why her counsel represented to this Court that she had accepted the
Offer of Judgment when it is clear that the Offer of Judgment had expired. If anything, the
e-mails between counsel reflect that no settlement was ever reached because the parties could
not agree on an appropriate settlement amount. Nonetheless, the Court cannot say that
Plaintiff’s filings with this Court were made in bad faith.
In sum, although Plaintiff’s counsel does not seem competent in the application of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules, the Court declines to enter
sanctions at this time. The Court will not hesitate to enter sanctions in the future if Plaintiff’s
counsel neglects to follow the rules going forward. For now, this case will proceed on the
merits.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

The Court declines to enter sanctions against Plaintiff or her counsel at this
time.

-4-

2.

The Court will issue an Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on October 2, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record

-5-