UNITED STATES DISTRIST COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION LUIS A. GARCIA SAZ, and wife, MARIA DEL ROCIO BURGOS GARCIA, Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 8:13-CV-220-T27 TBM s. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TRUST; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SHIP SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC. d/b/a MAJESTIC CRUISE LINES; IAS ADMINISTRATIONS, INC.; U.S. IAS MEMBERS TRUST. Defendants.
DEFENDANTS UNOPPOSED
MOTION
AND
MEMORANDUM
OF LAW TO STRIKE LETTERS OF MARCEL
WENGER AND
CINDY PLAHUTA
Defendants, pursuant to Local Rules 3.01 c)
and
f), jointly move to strike the letters mailed
to
the court
by
Marcel Wenger and Cindy Plahuta, and filed
by
the
court on July 12, 2016.
1. The
grounds for the motion are that
the
court
rules
prohibit
the
filing of
a
request for relief or
the
presentation of argument
by
letter to
the
court, and prohibit the filing of any matter on behalf of party with respect to pending motion other that
the
original motion and memorandum and the opposition thereto. Neither Wenger nor Plahuta
are
parties
to
this case.
For
that reason alone, their While Wenger and Plahuta were previously etters
are
improper and should be stricken. represented by attorney Theodore Babbitt, attorney
for the
Plaintiffs, he states he does
not
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 213 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID 4170
currently represent them, did not know they were planning
to file the
letters, and had nothing to do with the filing of the letters., Defendants have no knowledge
to
the contrary. No matter
the
circumstances,
the
attempt
to
submit written materials to this court in
a
clear effort to support
the
positions of the Plaintiffs
in
this action and with respect to
the
pending motion
is
improper and
in
violation of
the
local rules, which further require the letters be stricken from the
file
and the record. 5. Rule 3.01
c)
provides that after
a
party files
a
motion of whatever kind (pursuant to Rule 3 01(a)) and
the
opposing party files an opposition (pursuant
to
Rule 3.01(b)),
No
party shall
file
any reply or further memorandum directed to the motion or response allowed
in
(a) and (b) unless
the
Court grants
leave.
Pleadings filed
in
violation of
the
Local Rules should be ordered stricken or returned.
Grant
v
Rotolante,
2013
WL
2155076, at *4 (M.D. Fla., May 17, 2013;
citing,
Olsen
v
Lane,
1994 WL 151046,
at
*3 (M.D.Fla.
Apr.l
1,
1994) (striking letters filed
in
violation of Local Rule 3.01(f));
Lync
Sales
Co.
v.
Hudson's
Furniture
Showroom,
Inc.,
2009
WL
2495976, at
*1
(M.D.Fla.
Aug.l
1, 2009) (striking
a
letter motion
in
violation of Rule 3.01(f) and for failure to include the proper caption). While neither
Wenger
nor Plahuta are parties
to the
case, they clearly have
.
attempted to file,
in
letter form, further memoranda
in
support of the
Plaintiffs
position, without
seeking
leave of court. Certainly, if
a
party may not file
a
further memorandum,
a
stranger
to
the lawsuit may not unilaterally file such
a
memorandum, lest
the
Rule, and the orderly administration of
the
case, be undermined.
7.
Rule 3.01(f) provides
in
part:
All
applications to the Court (i) requesting relief
in
any form, or (ii) citing authorities or presenting argument with respect to any matter awaiting decision,
2
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 213 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID 4171
shall
be
made
in
writing
n
accordance with
this
rule and
in
appropriate form pursuant
to
Rule 1.05; and, unless invited or directed
by
the presiding judge, shall not
be
addressed or presented
to
the Court
in the
form of
a
letter or the like.
All
pleadings and papers to be filed shall be filed with
the
Clerk of
the
Court and not with
the
judge thereof, except
as
provided
by
Rule 1.03(c) of these
Rules.
The letters of Wenger and Plahuta clearly request relief
in
favor of the Plaintiffs, and clearly present argument with respect
to
the
very
matters awaiting decision. They clearly are not presented
in
appropriate form pursuant
to
Rule 1.05, but rather are presented to the Court
in the
form of
a
letter or
the like.
And they were mailed directly to
the
Judge, and not to
the
clerk. WHEREFORE, Defendants
respectfully
request
the
entry of an order striking the letters of Wenger and Plahuta
from
the
file
and record of this case.
CERTIFICATION
OF COMPLI NCE
WITH LOCAL RULE 3.01
Moving counsel hereby certifies that he has consulted with Theodore Babbitt, counsel for
Plaintiffs
to
determine whether plaintiffs oppose this motion. Mr. Babbitt has authorized the undersigned
to
represent
the
motion
is
not opposed.
CERTIFIC TE
OF SERVICE
I
HEREBY CERTIFY that on
July
21,
2016,1
electronically filed
the
foregoing with
the
Clerk
of the
Court by
using the
CM/ECF system which will send
a
notice of electronic filing
to the RONALD
P.
WEIL, ESQUIRE,
rpw@weillaw.net. and THEODORE BABBITT,
ollowing:
ESQUIRE,
tedbabbitt@,babbitt-iohnson.com. Attorneys
for
Plaintiffs.
3
Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 213 Filed 07/21/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID 4172
