Deer et al v. SALTZMAN, TANIS, PITTELL, LEVIN & JACOBSON, INC., et al

Filing 50

ORDER adopting 35 Report and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 4/20/2011. (kfn)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 10-61588-CIV-HUCK LAVERN DEER, Plaintiff, v. SALTZMAN, TANIS, PITTELL, LEVIN & JACOBSON, INC., d/b/a PEDIATRIC ASSOCIATES, Defendant. ______________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant[s’] Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (D.E. #15), filed December 10, 2010. On April 1, 2011, Magistrate Judge John O’Sullivan entered a Report and Recommendation (D.E. #35), in which he recommended that the motion be granted in part and denied in part. Judge O’Sullivan further recommended that the Court award Defendants $900.00 against Plaintiff’s counsel as fair and reasonable attorney’s fees directly resulting from the Rule 11(b)(2) violation in this case. On April 14, 2011, Plaintiff’s counsel filed objections to the Report and Recommendation (D.E. #46). The Court has independently reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the objections, the pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise duly advised. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions in the Report and Recommendation. Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants are entitled to monetary sanctions in the amount of $900.00 as fair and reasonable attorney’s fees directly resulting from the Rule 11(b)(2) violation. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Miami, Florida, April 20, 2011. __________________________ Paul C. Huck United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan All Counsel of Record

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?