Pinero v. Corp. Courts at Miami Lakes, Inc.
Filing
45
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Paul C. Huck on 5/20/2009. (lc2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S O U T H E R N DISTRICT OF FLORIDA C A S E NO.: 09-20343-CIV-HUCK/O'SULLIVAN E M ILIO PINERO, P l a i n t i f f, vs. C O R P . COURTS AT MIAMI LAKES, INC., D efen d an t. _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ / O R D E R OF DISMISSAL T H IS MATTER is before the Court upon the Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to Attend Court Ordered S ettlem e nt Conference filed May 14, 2009 [D.E. #36] and Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Imposing Sanctions on Plaintiff's Counsel and for Stay of the Order Pending Appeal filed o n May 18, 2009 [D.E. #38]. T h e Court entered a Scheduling Order on February 20, 2009, requiring the parties to complete m ed iatio n prior to trial. That order clearly indicates that "non-compliance with any provision of this O rd er may subject the offending party to sanctions, including dismissal of claims or striking of defenses. It is the duty of all counsel to enforce the timetable set forth herein in order to insure an ex p ed itiou s resolution of this cause." The Court subsequently granted the Defendant's Motion for a S ettlem en t Conference and entered an order referring the case United States Magistrate Judge Peter R. P alerm o for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference. Pursuant to that reference, Magistrate Ju d ge Palermo issued an Order Scheduling Settlement Conference on April 30, 2009 setting a set tle m e n t conference on May 12, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. Magistrate Judge Palermo's scheduling order clearly states that the settlement conference shall be attended by all parties. The Plaintiff did not attend th e settlement conference and, as more fully described in Magistrate Judge Palermo's Order Imposing S an ctio n s issued on May 14, 2009, the Plaintiff's counsel was personally sanctioned $2,500.00 for deliberate and willful refusal to comply with the Magistrate Judge Palermo's orders. U p o n review of the record, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to comply with th e Court's orders. First, as noted in Magistrate Judge Palermo's Order Imposing Sanctions, the
Plaintiff failed to appear at the settlement conference despite a clear requirement to so appear.1 Second, th e Plaintiff has not timely complied with this Court's Scheduling Order requiring mediation to be co m p leted by March 12, 2009.2 Orders requiring mediation and a settlement conference are specifically in ten d ed to expedite disposition of the action, ensure efficient management of the case, improve the q u ality of the trial, encourage a timely resolution of the dispute, facilitate settlement and conserve the resou rces of both the judiciary and the litigants. The Plaintiff had ample notice of both the required m e diatio n deadline (twenty days time from entry of Scheduling Order to expiration of mediation d ead lin e) and the date of the settlement conference (twelve days time from entry of Order Scheduling S ettlem e nt Conference to date of settlement conference). The Plaintiff did not file any request for enlargem ent of time or otherwise notify the Court that he would be unable to appear or meet those dead lines. The Court finds that the Plaintiff's repeated refusal to comply with the Court's orders has u n reaso n ab ly interfered with the expeditious resolution of this case. Each of the orders that Plaintiff failed to comply with also clearly stated that noncompliance c o u ld result in sanctions. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), the Court may impose san ctio n s if a party or party's attorney fails to appear at a pretrial conference or fails to obey a sch ed u lin g or pretrial order. Rule 16(f) sanctions were "designed to punish lawyers and parties for con du ct which unreasonably delays or otherwise interferes with the expeditious management of trial p rep aratio n ." United States v. Duran Samaniego, 345 F.3d 1280, 1284 (11th Cir. 2003) citing Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985). The Court finds that the appropriate sanction for the P lain tiff's noncompliance with the Court's orders, as demonstrated by his failure to appear at the settlem e nt conference and failure to timely schedule mediation, is dismissal of the complaint without p r e ju d ic e . A d d itio n ally, Rule 16(f)(2) provides that "[i]nstead of or in addition to any other sanction, the co u rt must order the party, its attorney, or both to pay the reasonable expenses--including attorney's
The Plaintiff argues in his Motion for Reconsideration that Rule 16 does not permit the Court to order parties to appear for pre-trial conferences. However, Rule 16(c) states, "If appropriate, the court may require that a party or its representative be present or reasonably available by other means to consider possible settlement." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(1) (emphasis added). In this case, Magistrate Judge Palermo's Order Scheduling Settlement Conference appropriately stated that party attendance was required. The Plaintiff also ignored the deadline for filing dispositive motions in the Scheduling Order, as his motion for summary judgment was filed three days after the deadline for such motions.
2
1
fees--incurred because of any noncompliance with this rule, unless the noncompliance was substantially ju stified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust." In accordance with that Rule, the C o u rt is requiring the Plaintiff to pay the reasonable expenses incurred by Defendant, including attorney's fees, resulting from the Plaintiff's failure to appear at the scheduled settlement conference. Th e Court finds that the Plaintiff's noncompliance in this action was not substantially justified and that an award of expenses and attorney's fees are just. T h erefo re, the Court having reviewed the record, the motions, and being otherwise duly ad v ised , it is ordered that: 1. The Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment an d to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to Attend Court Ordered Settlement C o n feren ce [D.E. #36] is granted in part and denied as moot in part. A. B. Th e Motion to Dismiss granted and the case is dismissed without prejudice. T h e Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is d en ied as moot. All pending motions not addressed in this order are now moot. T h erefo re, the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is moot and there is no need for the Court to address the Defendant's request to dismiss that m o tio n . 2. T h e Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Imposing Sanctions on P laintiff's Counsel and for Stay of the Order Pending Appeal [D.E. #38] is denied in p art and granted in part. A. B. 3. T h e Motion for Reconsideration is denied. T h e Motion for Stay of the Order pending appeal is granted.
Th e Plaintiff shall pay Defendant's reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, in cu rred because of the Plaintiff's failure to appear at the scheduled settlement c o n fe re n c e .
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated herein, this case is dismissed without prejudice. Any p en d ing motions are denied as moot, and the case is closed.
D O N E AND ORDERED in Chambers, Miami, Florida, May 20, 2009.
Paul C. Huck U n ited States District Judge C o p y furnished to: A ll 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?