Filed: Sep. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on the following: 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Foreclosure Sale (Doc. 110), filed September 4, 2015; and 2. Defendants[] [Lucmaur, LLC, Center for Dermatology and Skin Surgery, Enid F. Burnett MD, P.A., and Enid F. Burnett's] Objection and Response in Opposition to Part of the Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Foreclosure Sale and Memorandum of Law Thereon (Doc. 111), filed September 8, 2015. Local Rule 3.01(g) re
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on the following: 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Foreclosure Sale (Doc. 110), filed September 4, 2015; and 2. Defendants[] [Lucmaur, LLC, Center for Dermatology and Skin Surgery, Enid F. Burnett MD, P.A., and Enid F. Burnett's] Objection and Response in Opposition to Part of the Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Foreclosure Sale and Memorandum of Law Thereon (Doc. 111), filed September 8, 2015. Local Rule 3.01(g) req..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on the following:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Foreclosure Sale (Doc. 110), filed September 4, 2015; and
2. Defendants[] [Lucmaur, LLC, Center for Dermatology and Skin Surgery, Enid F. Burnett MD, P.A., and Enid F. Burnett's] Objection and Response in Opposition to Part of the Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Foreclosure Sale and Memorandum of Law Thereon (Doc. 111), filed September 8, 2015.
Local Rule 3.01(g) requires that before filing most motions, the moving party is obligated to meet and confer with the opposing party in an effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion. M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g). The moving party must then include a certification in the motion notifying the Court as to whether the opposing party agreed to the requested relief. Id. As defined in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order ("CMSO"), "the term `confer' in Rule 3.01(g) requires a substantive conversation in person or by telephone . . . and does not envision an exchange of ultimatums by fax, letter or email. Counsel who merely `attempt' to confer have not `conferred.'" (Doc. 33, p. 4.)
Here, Plaintiff's certification does not comply with Rule 3.01(g) because Plaintiff failed to certify that the parties conversed in person or by telephone. (See Doc. 110, pp. 5-6.) As advised in the CMSO, the Court will deny motions with such deficient certifications. (Doc. 33, p. 5.)
The CMSO also requires the non-movant to "respond promptly to inquiries and communications from opposing counsel." (Id. at p. 4.) Here, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants' counsel did not comply with its obligations under the CMSO. (Doc. 110, pp. 5-6.) However, Defendants' response also alleges troubling conduct on the part of Plaintiff's counsel. (Doc. 111, pp. 1-2.) Regardless of the truth of such allegations, this is precisely the type of uncollegial behavior that Rule 3.01(g) seeks to prevent. See Desai v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., 944 F.Supp. 876, 878 (M.D. Fla. 1996) ("The purpose of the rule is to require the parties to communicate and resolve certain types of disputes without court intervention.").
The motion is due to be denied because it was filed without the requisite certification. After sufficiently complying with Local Rule 3.01(g), Plaintiff may reassert its motion. Defendants' counsel is reminded that the CMSO requires prompt responses to such communications. (Doc. 33, p. 4.) Counsel for both parties are reminded that the Court will not tolerate unprofessional conduct.1
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Foreclosure Sale (Doc. 110) is DENIED Without Prejudice.
2. The parties are DIRECTED to meet and confer in compliance with Local Rule 3.01(g) and the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 33.)
DONE AND ORDERED.
