UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDATAMPA DIVISION
SUNLUST PICTURES LLC,Plaintiff, Case No. 8:12-CV-01685-MSS-MAPv.TUAN NGUYEN,Defendant. /
MEMORANDUM OF NON-PARTIES PRENDA LAW, INC., PAUL DUFFY, BRETTGIBBS AND JOHN STEELE IN OPPOSITION TODEFENDANT TUAN NGUYEN’S OMNIBUS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Case 8:12-cv-01685-MSS-MAP Document 40 Filed 12/20/12 Page 1 of 25 PageID 241
TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE
I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................1II. Background ....................................................................................................................1III. The motion for sanctions rests on an inaccurate understanding of the facts. ................3A. Facts regarding the involvement of Prenda Law in this matter. ........................3B. Mr. Steele’s lack of involvement in the litigation of this matter. ......................4C. Facts regarding the use of Mr. Lutz as Sunlust’s representative. ......................5IV. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the Non-Parties. ........................................................6V. Even if the Court could consider the motion for sanctions, it would be due to bedenied on the merits. ......................................................................................................8A. Sanctions are not warranted under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927. .............................81. Mr. Duffy’s letter to the Court ...............................................................92. The filing of each document in this matter ..........................................113. The delay of the case management conference and filing of motions towithdraw ..............................................................................................124. Designating Mr. Lutz as Sunlust’s representative ...............................13B. Sanctions are not warranted under the Court’s inherent authority. .................14VI. The motion for sanctions was filed in bad faith for an improper purpose. ..................17VII. The fees Defendant requests are unsubstantiated and excessive. ................................20
Case 8:12-cv-01685-MSS-MAP Document 40 Filed 12/20/12 Page 2 of 25 PageID 242
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases Page(s)
ANZ Advanced Technologies, LLC v. Bush Hog, LLC
,2012 WL 715099 (S.D. Ala. 2012) ..............................................................................15
Bray & Gillespie Management, LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co.
,2009 WL 5606058 (M.D. Fla. 2009) ...........................................................................15
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,
501 U.S. 32 (1991) .................................................................................................15, 16
Feldman v. Davidson
,2009 WL 995473 (S.D. Fla. 2009) ..............................................................................15
G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp.
,871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989) .......................................................................................14
Helmac Products Corp. v. Roth (Plastics) Corp.,
150 F.R.D. 563 (E.D.Mich.1993) ................................................................................15
In re Himmel
,533 N.E.2d 790 (Ill. 1988) ...........................................................................................18
In re Novak
,932 F.2d 1397 (11th Cir. 1991) ...................................................................................14
In re VIII So. Mich. Assocs.
,175 B.R. 976 (Bkrtcy. N.D.Ill. 1994) ..........................................................................15
Loranger v. Stierheim
,10 F.3d 776 (11th Cir. 1994) .......................................................................................20
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.,
545 U.S. 913 (2005) .......................................................................................................1
McGuire v. Sigma Coatings, Inc.
,48 F.3d 902 (5th Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................6, 7
MacKay v. Crews,
2009 WL 5062119(E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2009) ............................................................................................17
Peterson v. BMI Refractories
,124 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................11
Case 8:12-cv-01685-MSS-MAP Document 40 Filed 12/20/12 Page 3 of 25 PageID 243
|