Dahdouh v. Road Runner Moving and Storage Inc

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: March 17, 2021
• Docket: 0:20-cv-61936
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-61936-RAR

ROLAND RAOUF DAHDOUH and ALEJANDRO MORALES,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROAD RUNNER MOVING AND STORAGE, INC., et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________/

ORDER AWARDING SANCTIONS

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Response to Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 68], filed on March 5, 2021, in response to this Court’s Order [ECF No. 67] on Defendants’ Motion to Strike [ECF No. 66]. The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ Response, Defendants’ Reply [ECF No. 69], and all pertinent portions of the record. Plaintiffs’ Response misses the mark entirely. It does not explain why Plaintiffs’ counsel filed an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 65] naming a defendant which had been previously dismissed—for 43 days—by the Court [ECF No. 50] and why Plaintiffs’ counsel doubled-down on his improper Amended Complaint even after being contacted by Defendants’ counsel regarding the same. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel, attempting to place the blame on anyone but himself, highlights that neither “Defendants’ counsel or the Court raise[d] any issue concerning the allegations regarding John Mather.” Resp. at 1-2. Plaintiffs’ counsel appears to have forgotten that the “plaintiff is the master of his or her complaint.” See, e.g., Franklin v. QHG of 1269 Gadsden, Inc., 127 F.3d 1024, 1028 (11th Cir. 1997). “[T]he Court does not serve as counsel’s law clerk”—nor is it this Court’s job to do Plaintiffs’ counsel’s work for him. Federal Ins. Co. v. necessarily includes the authority to impose reasonable and appropriate sanctions upon errant lawyers practicing before it.” Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 775 F.2d 1440, 1447 (11th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). To that end, the “Court has the inherent power to impose sanctions on parties, lawyers or both.” JTR Enters., LLC v. An Unknown Co., No. 11-10074, 2014 WL 12503330, at *8 (S.D. Fla. June 19, 2014). “Federal courts possess potent inherent powers that they may use to ‘fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.’” Peer v. Lewis, 571 F. App’x 840, 844 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991)). Sanctions are warranted here. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to read and abide by the Court’s

Orders dated February 25, 2021 and January 14, 2021 [ECF Nos. 50, 64] resulted in the necessity of filing a Motion to Strike [ECF No. 66]. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s conduct in repeatedly ignoring Orders of the Court, as explained in detail in the Court’s Order Granting Motion to Strike [ECF No. 67], is “conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Chambers, 501 U.S.at 44-45. Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s behavior was tantamount to bad faith because such behavior “delay[ed] or disrupt[ed] the litigation” and “hamper[ed] the enforcement of a court order.” Tarasewicz v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 14-60885, 2016 WL 3944178, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 17, 2016). In sum, Plaintiff’s counsel’s behavior reflects a “willful disobedience of a court’s orders” such that the Court is justified in imposing sanctions under its inherent power. See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 47. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. No good cause having been shown as to why sanctions should not be imposed, they are hereby awarded. 2. Accordingly, sanctions are imposed against Plaintiffs’ counsel for the reasonable fees incurred by Defendants’ counsel in connection with the filing of the Motion to Strike [ECF No. 66]. 3. If the parties cannot agree on the amount of the same, the Court will address the award of fees upon proper motion—which may involve the imposition of additional sanctions if the Court finds that a party is conducting itself unreasonably. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 17th day of March, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3