Scribd

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


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
