U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Rubio et al

Filing 27

ORDER STRIKING 26 Defendant Rubio's Email from the record for failure to comply with the Court's Orders; ORDER for Rubio to properly file his pro se notice and opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment no later than 10/23/2012. Please see Order for details. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 10/16/2012. (bon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 12-22129-CIV-ROSENBAUM/SELTZER
U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSE S. RUBIO and RUBIO WEALTH
MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ EMAIL RESPONSE FROM RECORD; ORDER
REQUIRING DEFENDANT RUBIO TO PROPERLY COMPLY WITH COURT’S
ORDERS
This cause is before the Court upon review of the record. Plaintiff filed its Complaint against
Defendants Jose S. Rubio (“Rubio”) and Rubio Wealth Management, LLC, (“RWM”) on June 7,
2012. D.E. 1. After repeated unsuccessful attempts to serve Defendants with the Complaint and
summons, Plaintiff sought and received from this Court permission to alternatively serve Defendants
via email. D.E. 17. Defendants were served via email on August 22, 2012, and their Answer was
due on or before September 12, 2012. D.E. 18. On Plaintiff’s motion, the Clerk entered a default
against Defendants on September 14, 2012. Plaintiff then filed its Motion for Default Judgment on
September 24, 2012. That same day, Defendant Rubio emailed this Court and Plaintiff stating his
opposition to the motion.
In response to Rubio’s email, this Court ordered (1) Rubio to obtain counsel or properly file
notice of his intent to appear pro se, (2) corporate Defendant RWM to obtain counsel, and (3)
Defendants to show cause why Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment should not be granted. D.E.

24; D.E. 25. The Court provided instructions to Rubio about the responsibilities of pro se litigants
that specifically noted, among other things, that all papers must be filed directly with the Clerk of
the Court, that nothing may be emailed directly to the district judge’s chambers, and that all filings
must include the litigant’s address and telephone number. D.E. 24 at 3-5. Defendants were given
until October 12, 2012, to comply with the Court’s Orders, and were cautioned that failure to comply
may result in the Court entering a default judgment against them.
In response to the Court’s Orders, on October 12, 2012, Rubio improperly emailed this Court
noting his intent to appear pro se and requesting that the case be dismissed. D.E. 26. Rubio’s direct
email to chambers is not a proper filing with this Court, as was explicitly made clear to Rubio in the
Court’s pro se instructions. Further, no counsel has entered an appearance on behalf of RWM at this
time, and Rubio cannot represent RWM before this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Rubio’s October 12, 2012,
email [D.E. 26] is STRICKEN from the record because of its failure to comply with the Court’s
prior Order. It is further ORDERED that Rubio shall properly file with the Clerk of the Court his
intent to appear pro se and his opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Default Judgment no later than
October 23, 2012. Rubio’s filings must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this
Court’s Local Rules. A failure to timely and properly file these documents with the Clerk of the
Court may result in the granting of Plaintiff’s Motion and the immediate entry of a default judgment
against Rubio. The Court has now explained the proper filing procedures to Rubio twice. Further

2

failures to comply will be treated as failures to file.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 16th day of October 2012.

ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
The Honorable Barry S. Seltzer
Counsel of Record
Jose S. Rubio
via email at [e-mail]
Rubio Wealth Management, LLC
via email at [e-mail]

3