UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDATAMPA DIVISION
SUNLUST PICTURES, LLC, )))Plaintiff, )))Civil Action No.8:12-CV-1685-MSS-MAPv. ))
December 31st, 2012
TUAN NGUYEN, )))Defendants, )
DEFENDANT TUAN NGUYEN’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST NON-PARTY ATTORNEY JOHN STEELE AND REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SHOWCAUSE AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
Defendant, Tuan Nguyen, by and through undersigned counsel, for sanctions andJohn Steele, pursuant to 28 USC § 1927, and the courts inherent power to issue sanctions,and states in support thereof that:
DANIEL WEBBER’S DECLARATION AN ATTEMPTED FRAUD ON THECOURT
Defendant files this motion in good faith for sanctions against John Steelealleging that he drafted the fraudulent Declaration of Daniel Webber, (
Dkt. # 40, Ex. A
)the Amended Affidavit of Daniel Weber, (
Dkt # 44,, Ex. A
) and his own Affidavit, theAffidavit of John Steele (
Dkt. # 40, Ex. D
). “When parties and lawyers make falsestatements to their adversaries and to the court that generate costs, there is every reasonfor them to pay those costs.”
Margo v. Weiss
, 213 F. 3d 55, 62 (2
nd
Cir 2000).
Case 8:12-cv-01685-MSS-MAP Document 46 Filed 12/31/12 Page 1 of 22 PageID 372
Withdrawal of Portion of First Motion for Sanctions
Defendant previously filed for sanctions against Mr. Steele for his role in theNovember 27
th
hearing, and alleged that he drafted the letter sent to the court by PaulDuffy wherein Mr. Duffy stated he could not attend due to eye surgery. Mr. Duffy hasfiled a sworn statement that he wrote the letter.
Dkt. # 40, Ex B
. Therefore, Defendantwithdraws only that portion of the previous motion for sanctions against John Steele tothe extent that it alleged Mr. Steele wrote Mr. Duffy’s eye surgery excuse letter. Inwithdrawing that portion of the first motion for sanctions, Defendant has learned thevaluable lesson that the name assigned to a specific electronic device does not necessarilymean that a person committed a wrongful act. Defendant and Defendant’s counselapologize to Mr. Steele for his accusation in that matter.Defendant still fully seeks the maximum amount of sanctions that can be awardedagainst John Steele for his role in presenting Mark Lutz to the court and his role inmaintaining this action before the court in the previous motion for sanctions, in additionto the sanctions requested here.DANIEL ‘WEBBER’ and DANIEL ‘WEBER’
Declaration of Daniel Webber Was Prepared by John Steele
The purported Declaration of Daniel Webber (
Dkt # 40, Ex. A
) (misspelling hisown name and falsely stating that he was in India at the time of the hearing) was anattempted fraud on the court, made in an effort to endorse the statements made at thehearing by John Steele that the principals of “Sunlust” were in India during the hearing.
Case 8:12-cv-01685-MSS-MAP Document 46 Filed 12/31/12 Page 2 of 22 PageID 373
(
Dkt. # 28, Pg. 19, Ln. 6
) The previously mentioned Declaration of Daniel Webber wasamended with the Affidavit of Daniel Weber.
1
(
Dkt. # 44, Ex. A
).
Notice to Opposing Counsel of Fraud on the Court for the Declaration of Daniel Webber results in Affidavit of Daniel Weber
Defendant informed non-parties of tremendous concern over the Declaration of Daniel Webber (
Dkt. #40, Ex. A
) This fraudulent declaration, much like the fraud uponthe court at the November 27
th
hearing, was offered willingly by the non-parties in afurther effort to defraud this court. The correction of the Declaration of Daniel“Webber”, by the Affidavit of Daniel Weber in this case came upon notice, to counsel forthe non-parties, that: 1) Daniel Weber misspelled his name and 2) that according topublic statements on Twitter made by Daniel Weber, he was in Los Angeles that day, and3) that the declaration was invalid under 28 U.S.C. § 1746. (
Dkt. #44, Exhibit A
)After the filing of the Declaration of Daniel Webber, (
Dkt. #40, Exhibit A
) butbefore the filing of the Affidavit of Daniel Weber, Defendant reached out by phone to thenon-parties, and stated that Weber was not spelled with two “B’s”. Despite this truth,Counsel for Defendant was informed by non-parties with resounding confidence thatWeber was spelled with two “B’s” and that any belief that Weber is spelled with one “B”must be based upon faulty information. Defendant was unaware at that time whether anydeclaration failed to comport with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, and rested his arguments on the factthat Webber was not spelled with two “B’s” in that verbal exchange.In the same conference, Defendant also relayed to non-parties that he had heardsecond hand that according to his Mr. Weber’s own Twitter posts, he was in Los Angeles
1
Another misspelling of a clients name, John Steele previously misspelled the name of his sometimesclient, but not in this case in particular, Sunny Leone. Dkt #28, Pg. 19, Ln. 1 (Mr. Steele: S-O-N-N-Y,Leone).
Case 8:12-cv-01685-MSS-MAP Document 46 Filed 12/31/12 Page 3 of 22 PageID 374
|