Matos v. America Layout Corp. et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying without prejudice to renew 13 Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan on 2/13/2012. (mms)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 11-24296-CIV-LENARD/O'SULLIVAN
OSCAR MATOS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AMERICAN LAYOUT, CORP., MIRIAN
GOMEZ and JOSE ARMANDO GOMEZ,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for More Definite Statement
(DE# 13, 2/10/12) filed by the defendants. This motion was referred to the undersigned
by the Honorable Joan A. Lenard pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). See Referral Order
(DE# 14, 2/13/12). Having reviewed the applicable filings and the law, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for More Definite Statement (DE#
13, 2/10/12) is DENIED without prejudice to renew if the parties are unable to resolve
the matter. The gist of the instant motion is that the name of the plaintiff in the body of
the complaint is different from the name of the plaintiff in the caption. Id. at 1. Local
Rule 7.1(a)(3) provides, in part, that:
Prior to filing any motion in a civil case, [with certain inapplicable
exceptions], counsel for the movant shall confer (orally or in writing), or
make reasonable effort to confer (orally or in writing), with all parties or
non-parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in a
good faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues to be raised in the
motion. . . . At the end of the motion, and above the signature block,
counsel for the moving party shall certify either: (A) that counsel for the
movant has conferred with all parties or non-parties who may be affected
by the relief sought in the motion in a good faith effort to resolve the
issues raised in the motion and has been unable to do so; or (B) that
counsel for the movant has made reasonable efforts to confer with all

parties or non-parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the
motion, which efforts shall be identified with specificity in the statement,
but has been unable to do so. . . . Failure to comply with the
requirements of this Local Rule may be cause for the Court to grant
or deny the motion . . . .
S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3) (2011) (emphasis added). The instant motion does not certify
that the defendants conferred with the plaintiff prior to filing the motion. Because a
motion for more definite statement is not listed among the exceptions to Local Rule
7.1(a)(3), the defendants were required to confer with the plaintiff prior to filing the
instant motion. The purpose of Rule 7.1(a)(3) is twofold. “Local Rule 7.1 serves the
purpose not only of attempting to avoid unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources
resolving motions that are not opposed, but also to allow the Court to ascertain whether
it should wait for a response from the opposing party before deciding the motion.”
Wrangen v. Pennsylvania Lumbermans Mut. Ins. Co., No. 07-61879, 2008 WL
5427785, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2008). It appears to the undersigned that the issue
raised in the instant motion is precisely the type of discrepancy that a Rule 7.1(a)(3)
conferral would clear up. In the future, counsel shall confer with the opposing side prior
to filing motions which fall under S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3).
DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 13th day of
February, 2012.

________________________________
JOHN J. O’SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies provided to:
U.S. District Judge Lenard
All counsel of record
2