Allen v. Robert F. Deluca, M.D., P.A. et al, No. 9:2018cv81265 - Document 96 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER denying 80 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Matthewman on 10/29/2019. See attached document for full details. (kza)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Allen v. Robert F. Deluca, M.D., P.A. et al Doc. 96 j ' U N ITED STA TES D ISTR ICT COU RT SO UTH ERN D ISTR ICT OF FLORID A Case N o.9:18-cv-81265-D im itrouleasN a=hewm = M elanie A llen, Plaintiff, FILED BY D.C. 02T 29,2019 RobertF.DeLuca,M .D .,P.A.,and, RobertF.D elwuca, ANGELA E'NOBLE CLERK U S DIS'ECX s.D.oFFkh.-w.p.a. D efendants. ORDER DENVING PLAINTIFF'SMOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DE 8ù1 THIS CAUSE isbeforetheCourtuponPlaintiffM elanieAllen'sM otion forSanctionsrDE ' l L t s. k;. -' .. 802.ThismatterwasreferredtotheundersignedbyUnitedStatesDistrit j J lliam P. 2J '. ' î: 2 q rzu 'd C''geWi ' . . D im itrouleas.See DE 87.Plaintifffiled herm otion on A ugust25,2019.D efendantresponded on September16,2019 (DE 91j.Plaintifffiled aReplytoDefendant'sResponseon September27, 2019 gDE 954.Thismatterisripeforreview.Forthereasonsthatfollow,Plaintiff'sM otion for Sanctions(DE 86jisDENIED. 1.B ackground Thiscase concerns an action to recoverovertim e pay tm derthe FairLabor StandardsA ct, ., . . 29U.S.C.j201.Plaintifffiled suiton September19,2018.Thecaseproceededto abenchtrial and Plaintiffprevailed.D lzring thepretrialstage and attrial,Plaintiffw asrepresented by attom ey Philip M ichael Cullen,'111.D efendants w ere represented by attorneys Gregory S.Sconzo and Joseph G.Sconzo (collectively,CdDefendants'Counsel'').Plaintiffnow seekssanctionsagainst Dockets.Justia.com Defendants'Cotmselunder28U.S.C.j 1927.1 A ccording to Defendants' Counsel, after Plaintiff filed suit, Defendants m et w ith and retained them ascounselon October11,2018.gDE 91,p.31.Defendantsinformed Defendants' CounselthatPlaintiffhad(Cneverworkedasinglehourofovertime''andCtprovidgedqthennmesof fellow employeesofPlaintiffwho verified thebusinesshours''ofDefendants'businessGsand that no em ployeew orked ove/im e.''1d.D efendants'Counselthen investigated D efendants'claim by obtaining the affidavit of D efendants' office m anager and w itness statem ents from Plaintiff's cow orkers. f#. A fter that, although the parties discussed resolution of the case, Plaintiff s settlementofferwasSçemphaticallyrejected''byDefendants.gDE 91,p.3j. D efendants'Cotm selthen,based on theirassessm entofthe m eritsofthe case,senta letter to Plaintiff s attorney,Philip M ichael Cullen,111,thatadvised thatthey believed Plaintiff s case w as w ithout m erit,explained their reasons for believing so,and stated that D efendants w ould pennit Plaintiff to w ithdraw her com plaint before D efendants responded to it and before D efendants ptlrsued a1lavailable rem edies,including sanctionsunderFed.R .Civ.P.11.f#.atp. Defendants'Counselthen filed amotion to dismiss gDE 18j,which the Courtgranted withoutprejudice(DE 28).Ultimately,PlaintiffadequatelyamendedhercomplaintgDES29,432, aùd the case proceeded tow ard a bench trial.A fter discovery,D efendants' Counsel,based on additionalaftidavitsfrom Defendants'employees,filedamotionforsummat'yjudgment(DE 371. Because of Plaintiff s Gtinconsistent testim ony to her w ritten discovery responses, as w ell as lPlaintiffscounselincorrectlycites:118U.S.C.j1972''inPlaintiff'smotion(DE 20,p.lj. betw een qttestions w ithin the sam e deposition,'' D efendants' Counsel titled their m otion for summaryjudgmentasamotion to dismissGdforfraud on thecourt.''gDE 91,p.4).The Court ultimatelydeniedthemotion.(DE 51j. A ccordingly,the case proceeded to a bench trial on July 3,2019,before the H onorable United StatesDistrictJudgeW illinm P.Dimitrouleas.(DE 611.Atthe conclusion ofthebench trial,Judge Dim itrouleas found in Plaintiff s favor,holding on July 9,2019,thatDefendantshad failed to pay Plaintiffovertimecompensation in violation oftheFairLaborStandardsAct.(DE 621.Onemonthlater,onAugust25,2019,Plaintifffiledtheinstantmotionforsanctions(DE 80q. Il.Plaintiff'sPendingM otion forSanctionsIDE 801 PlaintiffarguestheCourtshouldsanctionDefendants'Cotmselbecausettghqavingreadthe complaint''they (Gdid nottakethe statem entsin itastnleand tile allansweradm itting liability.''' (DE 80,p.61.ShecontendsthatDefendants'Cotmselshouldnothavetrustedtheirclientçtandhis minions''and Ciwouldhavelostnothing had (they)kepttheirthreatstothemselves.Havingnot doneso,(Defendqnts'Colmselqshouldberequiredtopayfortheirmisconduct.''gDE 80,p.71. D efendants'Cotm selvehem ently opposePlaintiffs'm otion,arguing thatPlaintiffsm otion is m eritlessasthey w ere m erely providing theirclientw ith com petentand zealousrepresentation. 111.Discussion and Analysis PlaintiffseekssanctionsagainstDefendants'Counselunderboth28U.S.C.j1927(which Plaintiff'scotmselincorrectly citedas:618U.S.C.1972')andthisCourt'sinherentpower.Thus, the Courtw illaddressboth theories. 28U.S.C. 'j1927providesthat galnyattorney ...who somultipliestheproceedingsin anycaseunreasonably 3 nd vexatiously m ay be required by the courtto satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct. lmportantly,j 1927 Esis nota catch-allprovision for sanctioning objectionable conduct by cotmsel.''Petersonv.BMlReh-actories,124F.3d 1386,1396(11thCir.1997).Rather,theUnited StatesCourtofAppealsfortheEleventh CircuithasexplainedthatfortheCoul' tto award sanctions against a party's attorney,three requirem ents m ustbe m et.First,the Esattorney m ust engage in unreasonable and vexatious conduct.''1d Second,that Stconductm ustbe conductthatm ultiplies theproceedings.''fJ.AndSigtlinally,thedollaramountofthesanctionmustbearatinancialnexus to the excessproceedings,i.e.,thesanction m ay notexceed the costs,expenses,and atlorneys'fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.''1d. A n attorney engages in Gitm reasonable and vexatious cqnduct''Gtonly w hen the atp m ey's conduct is so egregious thatitis çtantam ountto bad faith.'''Am long d:A m long,P.A.v.D ' enny 's Inc.,500F.3d 1230,1239 (11th Cir.2007)(citation omitted).(&A determination ofbad faith is w arranted w here an attorney know ingly and recklessly pursues a frivolous claim or engages in litigation tactics that needlessly obstruct the litigàtion of non-frivolous claim s.''Schwartz v. MillionAir,Inc.,341F.3d 1220,1225(11thCir.2003). D istrict cotu'ts are also irlherently em pow ered to regulate litigation and sanction both litigants and theircounselforabusive conduct.Spolter v.SuntrustBank,403 Fed.Appx.387,390 (11th Cir.2010).Justlikesanctibnstmder28U.S.C.j 1927,Stgijnvocation ofa court'sinherent powersrequiresafinding ofbad faith.''In reMroz,65F.3d 1567,1575(11th Cir.1995).EGBad faith exists when the courtfinds thata fraud has been p'racticed upon it, orthatthe very tem ple of justicehasbeen defiled,orwhereaparty orattorneyknowingly orrecklessly raisesafrivolous 4 argum ent,delays or disnzpts the litigation,orham pers the enforcem entof a courtorder.''Bernal v.AllAm.Inv.Realty Inc.,479 F.supp.zd 1291,1335 (S.D.Fla.2007).Beforethe Courtmay im pose sanctions, l kt m ust determ ine by clear and convincing evidence that a litigant or counsel haveactedinbadfaith.InreBricanAm.LLCEqui p.LeaseLitig.,977F.supp.zd1287,1300(S.D. Fla.2013)(internalcitationsomitted).Finally,thebad faith inquiry focuses(sprimarily on the conductand motiveofaparty,ratherthan on thevalidity of the case.''Barash v.Kates,585 F.supp.zd 1347,1362 (S.D.Fla.2006)(emphasisadded). Plaintiff'sm otion forsanctionscentersaround two çlacts''thatshe arguesw ere m adein bad w-j faith such thatthe Courtshould im pose sanctions on Defendants'Cotm seltm dereither28 U .S.C. j1927ortheCourt'sinherentpower.First,Defendants'Counsel'slettertoPlaintiff'sattorneyin w hich they advised herthatthey could seek Rule 11 sanctions againstherifPlaintiff's com plaint w as found to be m eritless.A nd second, D efendants' Counsel's representation of D efendants throughoutthiscase as a whole.The Cotu'tfindsthatneither is an appropriate orsufficientbasis for sanctions. TheCourtfindsthatPlaintiffsmotion (DE 80qfailsunderboth28U.S.C.j1927andthis Court'sinherentpower.TheCourtflatly rejectsPlaintiffsrequestforsanctions.Plaintiffseeks sanctions againstD efendants'Counselfor,in effect,agreeing to representD efendants and doing so in amannerwith which Plaintiffdisagrees.The mere factthatPlaintiffultimately prevailed at trialon herovertim e claim isin no w ay a finding thatD efendants'Counselengaged in the type of (dbad faith''required for the im position of sanctions.Com m ent 1 to Florida Rule of Professional R esponsibility 4-3.3,w hich appliesto both Plaintiff s cotm seland D efendants'Counsel,explains thatitisevery attorney'sduty to: 5 presentthe client'scase with persuasive force.Perform anceofthatduty while maintaining confidences of the clientis qualified by the advocate's duty of candorto thetribunal.However,an advocatedoesnotvouchfortheevidence submitted in a cause;the tribunalis responsiblefor assensing itsprobative value. (emphasisadded).SurelyifDefendantshad insteadprevailedattrial,Plaintiffwouldnotagreeto the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff's cotmselfor ultim ately failing to prevail or for litigating the case strenuously.The Courtw illnotnow do so againstD efendants'Counselm erely forzealouslyrepresentingtheirclients.PlaintiffsmotionforsanctionsgDE 801is,quitefrankly, baseless.Themotion gDE 80)isDENJED. IV .C onclusion Thisw as a sim ple FLSA case w hich proceeded to a three hourbench trialand resulted in ajudgmentin favorofPlaintiffinthetotalamountof$4,593.32,including liquidated dnmages. The parties'counsel,oratleastsom e ofthem ,have apparently,and unfortunately,taken tlAis case ?artoopersonally.Theinstantmotioncanbestbedescribedasapetty squabbleamongcounsel. There is absolutely no basis for this Courtto im pose sanctions against D efendants' Counsel. Further,D efendants'request for sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel, contained in D efendants' responsegDE 91,p.121,isalso rejected.ln lightoftheforegoing,itishereby ORDERED that PlaintiffsM otionforSanctions(DE 80)isDENIED. D O N E and O R DER ED in cham bers at W estPalm B each,Palm .B each Cotm ty,Florida, thisa 1 da -yofOctober, 2019. V = W ILLIAM M A HEW M AN U nited StatesM agistrate Judge 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
