Minerva26

Li v. Walsh

2020 WL 10893835 (S.D. Fla. 2020)

May 12, 2020

Marra, Kenneth A., United States District Judge

Download PDF

To Cite List

Summary

The court denied Plaintiffs' request for a default judgment against Defendant Joseph Walsh, Sr., but imposed sanctions of reasonable attorney's fees for the costs associated with the discovery violations. The court also noted that Defendant did not respond to a request for production of ESI, which may contain evidence relevant to the dispute.

Additional Decisions

LAN LI, an individual; et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JOSEPH WALSH, an individual; et al., Defendants

CASE NO. 16-81871-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

Signed May 12, 2020

Counsel

Brett Drew Lieberman, Edelboim Lieberman Revah Oshinsky, PLLC, Miami, FL, Eunon Jason Mizrahi, Joshua Levin-Epstein, Katherine Burghardt-Kramer, Rongping Wu, DGW Kramer LLP, New York, NY, Jonathan Andrew Korte, Law Offices of Robert V. Cornish, Jr., Washington, DC, DC, Matthew Fornaro, Matthew Fornaro, P.A., CORAL SPRINGS, FL, for Plaintiff Lan Li.
Eunon Jason Mizrahi, Joshua Levin-Epstein, Katherine Burghardt-Kramer, Rongping Wu, DGW Kramer LLP, New York, NY, Matthew Fornaro, Matthew Fornaro, P.A., Coral Springs, FL, for Plaintiffs Ying Tan, Tao Xiong, Junqiang Feng, Ran Chen, Xiang Shu, Hao Lou, Xiang Chunhua, Bei Zhu, Qiong Deng, Qiongfang Zhu, Yulong Tang, Lili Zhang, Shuangyun Wang, Wenhao Zhang, Sha Shi, Yajun Kang, Chengyu Gu, Yan Chen, Dongsheng Zhu, Rujing Wei, Juewei Zhou, Min Li, Chunning Ye, Hongru Pan, Yuanbo Wang, Shu Jiang, Ying Fei, Li Dongsheng, Mohammad Zargar, Reza Siamak Nia, Tang Cheok Fai, Ali Adampeyra.
Eunon Jason Mizrahi, Joshua Levin-Epstein, Katherine Burghardt-Kramer, DGW Kramer LLP, New York, NY, Matthew Fornaro, Matthew Fornaro, P.A., Coral Springs, FL, for Plaintiffs Kuang Yaoping, Xiaonan Wang.
Eunon Jason Mizrahi, Joshua Levin-Epstein, Katherine Burghardt-Kramer, Rongping Wu, DGW Kramer LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs Zhiling Gan, Cuilian Li, Halil Erseven, Chaohui Li.
Brett Drew Lieberman, Edelboim Lieberman Revah Oshinsky, PLLC, Miami, FL, Robert V. Cornish, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Law Office of Robert V. Cornish, Jr., Jackson, WY, for Plaintiffs Liyan Feng c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Shaoqing Zeng c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Min Cui C/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Qingyun Yu c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Yingjun Yang, Daqin Weng c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Xiaoping Zhang, Shaoping Huang c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Changyue Liu c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Feng Guo c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Zheng Yu c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Tingting Sun c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Yawen Li c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Tonghui Luan c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China.
Brett Drew Lieberman, Edelboim Lieberman Revah Oshinsky, PLLC, Miami, FL, Robert V. Cornish, Jr., Law Office of Robert V. Cornish, Jr., Jackson, WY, for Plaintiffs Ruji Li, Ling Li c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Yi Zhao c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Xiao Sun c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China, Li Zhang c/o Baoping ("Effie") Liu Room 503, Tower 2 Phase 1 of Excellence City No. 128 ZhongKang Road Shenzhen City Guangdong Province 518048 China.
Brett Drew Lieberman, Edelboim Lieberman Revah Oshinsky, PLLC, Miami, FL, Jonathan Andrew Korte, Law Offices of Robert V. Cornish, Jr., Washington, DC, Robert V. Cornish, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Law Office of Robert V. Cornish, Jr., Jackson, WY, for Plaintiff Baoping Liu 8205 Mirasol Irvine, CA 92620.
Matthew Fornaro, Matthew Fornaro, P.A., Coral Springs, FL, for Plaintiff Shahriar Ebrahimian 126 Taleghani St. Bahar Intersection Tehran 1561833894 Iran.
Eunon Jason Mizrahi, Joshua Levin-Epstein, Katherine Burghardt-Kramer, DGW Kramer LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff Mohammadreza Sedaghat.
Ruji Li, Pro Se.
Yingjun Yang, Pro Se.
Xiaoping Zhang, Pro Se.
Sara Salehin, Pro Se.
Sanaz Salehin, Pro Se.
Henry B. Handler, Seth Adam Kolton, Pro Hac Vice, Weiss Handler Angelos & Cornwell PA, Boca Raton, FL, for Defendants USREDA, LLC, JJW Consultancy, Ltd., Palm House Hotel, LLLP.
Christopher William Kammerer, John F. Mariani, Kammerer Mariani PLLC, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendants Robert Matthews, Palm House, LLC, Palm House PB, LLC, Mirabia, LLC, Bonaventure 22, LLC, MARIA, Alibi LLC.
Philip Joseph Landau, Shraiberg, Landau & Page, P.A., Boca Raton, FL, Christopher William Kammerer, John F. Mariani, Kammerer Mariani PLLC, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant 160 Royal Palm LLC.
Gregory R. Elder, Foreman Friedman, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendants Leslie Robert Evans, Leslie Robert Evans & Associates, P.A.
Larry Allen Zink, Zink, Zink & Zink Co., LPA, Canton, OH, for Defendant KK-PB Financial, LLC.
Christopher William Kammerer, Kammerer Mariani PLLC, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant Alibi, LLC.
Joseph Walsh, Jr., Royal Palm Beach, FL, Pro Se.
J. Marcus Payne, Glencoe, IL, Pro Se.
David Derrico, Boca Raton, FL, Pro Se.
Nicholas Laudano, Branford, CT, Pro Se.
Botticelli Advisors, LLC, Palm Beach, FL, Pro Se.

Marra, Kenneth A., United States District Judge

ORDER

*1 This cause is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike the Pleadings of and Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Joseph Walsh, Sr. (DE 622) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default against Defendant Joseph Walsh, Sr. (DE 623). No response to the Motions has been filed. The Court has carefully considered the Motions and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

Plaintiffs move to strike Defendant Joseph Walsh, Sr.’s (“Defendant”) Answer to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint and for an entry of default judgment against Defendant. In so moving, Plaintiffs point out that Defendant did not appear for his deposition scheduled for August 8, 2019.[1] (Jason Mizrahi Aff. ¶ 3-4, DE 622-1.) On October 3, 2019, Plaintiffs moved to compel Defendant's deposition (DE 544) and the Magistrate Judge ordered Defendant to appear (DE 559). Defendant did not appear for his deposition scheduled for November 10, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs seek sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs rely on Vaughn v. GEMCO2, LLC, No. 617CV1713ORL41KRS, 2018 WL 6620600, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2018) and Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 102 F.R.D. 472, 489 (S.D. Fla. 1984).

The district court possesses broad discretion to impose sanctions for a violation of a discovery order. Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 446 F.3d 1137, 1150 (11th Cir. 2006). The magnitude of a sanctions award under Rule 37 is bound only by that which is reasonable in light of the circumstances. Id. at 1151 (citing Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 775 F.2d 1440, 1453 (11th Cir. 1985)).

Here, Defendant has violated one court order. The Court does not believe that striking Defendant's answer is an appropriate sanction for this conduct. Indeed, even the cases relied upon by Plaintiff concern multiple violations of court orders.

In Vaughn, the court ordered the defendants to file various documents, including a notice of related cases, initial disclosures, sworn answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production. In addition, the court required the defendant to tender $250.00 to the plaintiff to compensate for the filing of the motion to compel. The court warned the defendant that the failure to comply with the order may result in an entry of default judgment. The court also ordered the parties to advise it on the status of mediation. The defendant did not comply with these orders or the court's directive about mediation. Vaughn v. GEMCO2, LLC, 2018 WL 6620600, at *1-4. (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2018). The Vaughn court held that the entry of default was the least severe sanction available, given that the plaintiff was denied the ability to schedule discovery or file a summary judgment motion because of the defendant's conduct. Id. at * 5.

Likewise, in Carlucci, the court imposed the sanction of the entry of default against a party when that party intentionally destroyed documents, failed to produce documents and violated the orders of the special master and the court. Carlucci, 102 F.R.D. at 486-87. The Carlucci court recognized that the entry of a default pursuant to Rule 37 should “rarely” be used but found that when “a party has consistently disobeyed orders, obstructed discovery, delayed proceedings and made misrepresentations to the court, an extreme sanction is warranted. When a party engaging in such conduct has been previously sanctioned by the court and yet continues the same pattern of conduct, the ultimate sanction is warranted.” Id. at 488.

*2 The facts alleged here are not as egregious as the cases cited by Plaintiffs and the Court concludes that Defendant's conduct does not merit the “extreme remedy of a default judgment.” French v. M&T Bank, 315 F.R.D. 695, 696 (N.D. Ga. 2016) (quoting Navarro v. Cohan, 856 F.2d 141, 142 (11th Cir. 1988)). As such, the Court will deny this requested relief without prejudice. If Defendant fails to comply with additional orders of the Court, it will revisit Plaintiffs’ request for this extreme relief. The Court will, however, impose sanctions of reasonable attorney's fees for the costs associated with the discovery violations upon Plaintiffs providing the necessary documentation.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike the Pleadings of and Entry of Default Judgment against Defendant Joseph Walsh, Sr. (DE 622) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default against Defendant Joseph Walsh, Sr. (DE 623) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 12th day of May, 2020.

Footnotes

[1]

Plaintiffs also note that Defendant did not respond to a request for production. (Mizrahi Aff. ¶ 4, DE 623-1.)