BLANCO GmbH + Co. KG v. Vlanco Industries, LLC et al

Filing 232

ORDER denying 211 Defendant Vito Antonio Laera's Motion for an Order to Void for Vagueness. Please see Order for details. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 5/21/2014. (ssk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 12-61580-CIV-ROSENBAUM
BLANCO GMBH + CO. KG,
Plaintiff,
vs.
VLANCO INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Vito Antonio Laera’s Motion for an Order
to Void for Vagueness [ECF No. 211]. In his Motion, Laera requests that the Court void the parties’
Stipulation of Settlement and Consent Judgment on the grounds that the terms are unconstitutionally
vague. Even if the disputed documents were subject to a void-for-vagueness challenge,1 Laera
provides no factual or legal support for his Motion and fails to identify even a single provision that
he seeks to dispute as vague. Rather, Laera states only that he wishes to “live free from fear or the
chilling effect of unpredictable actions from [P]laintiff.” ECF No. 211 at 2. Such general assertions
are wholly insufficient to sustain a vagueness challenge. See Am. Dog Owners Ass’n v. Dade Cnty.,
Fla., 728 F. Supp. 1533, 1540 (S.D. Fla. 1989) (“In a vagueness challenge, the plaintiff bears the
1

The void-for-vagueness doctrine generally protects against unconstitutionally vague
laws or other legislative enactments. See, e.g., Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358 (1983)
(“[T]he more important aspect of vagueness doctrine is . . . the requirement that a legislature
establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); Thibodeau v. Portuondo, 486 F.3d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 2007) (“As one of the most
fundamental protections of the Due Process Clause, . . . the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires
that laws be crafted with sufficient clarity to give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable
opportunity to know what is prohibited and to provide explicit standards for those who apply
them.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

burden . . . .”). Nor can the Court can discern any ambiguity from the terms of the Consent
Judgment, which expressly sets forth the acts that are proscribed and the specific marks and
designations that Defendants are enjoined from using. For these reasons, Laera’s Motion for an
Order to Void for Vagueness [ECF No. 211] is denied.
Plaintiff also requests that the Court grant Plaintiff the attorney’s fees and costs it incurred
in defending this Motion. It is well established that a court may award attorney’s fees and costs as
a sanction for bad-faith litigation pursuant to the court’s inherent authority. Barash v. Kates, 585
F. Supp. 2d 1368, 1371 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 51-53
(1991)). In order to impose sanctions pursuant to a court’s inherent authority, there must be a finding
of bad-faith conduct. See Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1121 (11th Cir.2001), abrogated on other
grounds by Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008); Barnes v. Dalton, 158 F.3d
1212, 1214 (11th Cir.1998). Bad-faith conduct can be demonstrated by a party’s knowing or reckless
raising of a frivolous argument, by a party’s harassment of an opponent, by a party’s delay or
disruption of a proceeding, or by a party’s hampering of the enforcement of a court order. Byrne,
261 F.3d at 1121 (citing Barnes, 158 F.3d at 1214).
Here, the Court finds that sanctions are warranted. Laera’s Motion to void the Consent
Judgment is entirely frivolous, as it lacks any arguable merit or foundation. See Sullivan v. Sch. Bd.
of Pinellas, Cnty., 773 F.2d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 1985). Moreover, Laera has a history of
submitting baseless filings to this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall recover its reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs incurred in litigating the instant Motion. Plaintiff shall separately file a
motion for attorney’s fees that complies with the Local Rules so that the Court may determine the
reasonableness of the award sought. In addition, because of Laera’s continuous abuse of the
-2-

litigation process, Plaintiff shall no longer be required to respond to any filings submitted by Laera
unless expressly ordered to do so by the Court.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Vito
Antonio Laera’s Motion for an Order to Void for Vagueness [ECF No. 211] is DENIED. Plaintiff
shall separately file a motion for attorney’s in accordance with this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 21st day of May 2014.

ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of record
Vito Antonio Laera, pro se
419 York Southern Road
Ft. Mill, SC 29715

-3-