Another loss for ASD Justice, and another instance of Dwight Schweitzer not following the Local Rules he says he knows all too well. Below are the main bits of today’s denial of Dwight’s motion to gather information he has no need in getting. The full document is on the Files website.
By Order dated March 5, 2012, the Court required the parties to file
Certificates of Interested Parties and Corporate Disclosure Statements that contain a complete list of persons, associated persons, firms, partnerships, or corporations that have a financial interest in the outcome of this case, including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates, parent corporations, and other identifiable legal entities related to a party.
(Order dated Mar. 5, 2012 [ECF No. 15]). Plaintiffs object to Defendant, United States’ Certificate of Interested Parties (“Certificate”) [ECF No. 40], filed on June 13, 2012. (1)
(1) Although proceeding pro se, Plaintiffs must comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida. (See Order dated Nov. 9, 2011 [ECF No. 3]). Local Rule 7.1(A)(3) of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida provides:
Prior to filing any motion in a civil case, . . . counsel for the movant shall confer (orally or in writing), or make reasonable effort to confer (orally or in writing), with all parties or non-parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in a good faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues to be raised in the motion. . . . At the end of the motion, and above the signature block, counsel for the moving party shall certify [in accordance herewith.]
(emphasis added). The Rule further provides that “[f]ailure to comply . . . may be cause for the Court to grant or deny the motion and impose on counsel an appropriate sanction . . . .” Id. Plaintiffs have failed to certify that they conferred or made reasonable efforts to confer with Defendant. Thus, it is within the Court’s discretion to deny the motion due to Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Local Rules. Nonetheless, the Court also addresses the substance of the Motion as Defendant has already responded.
The March 5 Order requires a Certificate listing those who may have a “financial interest in the outcome of this case.” (Order dated Mar. 5, 2012 (emphasis added)). Plaintiffs fail to explain in their Motion why unnamed parties who may have a financial interest in other forfeiture proceedings also have an interest in Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action.
The Court also observes Plaintiffs have not yet complied with the March 5 Order requiring them to file a Certificate of Interested Parties by March 27, 2012. Although Plaintiffs now claim they are unable to “comply with the courts [sic] order to the extent they are without the knowledge requested herein” (Mot. 2), they must comply to the best of their ability. Certainly, Plaintiffs may amend their Certificate as the case proceeds and as additional information is known. Indeed, “[t]hroughout the pendency of the action, the parties are under a continuing obligation to amend, correct, and update the Certificates.” (Order dated Mar. 5, 2012).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Motion [ECF No. 44] is DENIED.
2. On or before July 6, 2012, Plaintiffs shall comply with the requirements of the March 5 Order. Failure to comply will result in the entry of an order of dismissal without prejudice without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 27th day of June, 2012.