United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
[DE 80');">80');">80');">80]
WILLIAM MATTHEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS
CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Melanie Allen's
Motion for Sanctions [DE 80');">80');">80');">80]. This matter was referred to the
undersigned by United States District. Judge William P.
Dimitrouleas. See DE 87. Plaintiff filed her motion
on August 25, 2019. Defendant responded on September 16, 2019
[DE 91');">91');">91');">91');">91');">91');">91');">91]. Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendant's Response
on September 27, 2019 [DE 95]. This matter is ripe for
review. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion
for Sanctions [DE 86] is DENIED.
I.
Background
This
case concerns an action to recover overtime pay under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201. Plaintiff
filed suit on September 19, 2018. The case proceeded to a
bench trial and Plaintiff prevailed. During the pretrial
stage and at trial, Plaintiff was represented by attorney
Philip Michael Cullen, III. Defendants were represented by
attorneys Gregory S. Sconzo and Joseph G. Sconzo
(collectively, "Defendants' Counsel").
Plaintiff now seeks sanctions against Defendants' Counsel
under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.[1]
According
to Defendants' Counsel, after Plaintiff filed suit,
Defendants met with and retained them as counsel on October
11, 2018. [DE 91');">91');">91');">91');">91');">91');">91');">91, p.3]. Defendants informed Defendants'
Counsel that Plaintiff had "never worked a single hour
of overtime" and "provid[ed] the names of fellow
employees of Plaintiff who verified the business hours"
of Defendants' business "and that no employee worked
overtime." Id. Defendants' Counsel then
investigated Defendants' claim by obtaining the affidavit
of Defendants' office manager and witness statements from
Plaintiffs coworkers. Id. After that, although the
parties discussed resolution of the case, Plaintiffs
settlement offer was "emphatically rejected" by
Defendants. [DE 91');">91');">91');">91');">91');">91');">91');">91, p. 3].
Defendants'
Counsel then, based on their assessment of the merits of the
case, sent a letter to Plaintiffs attorney, Philip Michael
Cullen, III, that advised that they believed Plaintiffs case
was without merit, explained their reasons for believing so,
and stated that Defendants would permit Plaintiff to withdraw
her complaint before Defendants responded to it and before
Defendants pursued all available remedies, including
sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.p. 11. Id. at p. 4.
Defendants'
Counsel then filed a motion to dismiss [DE 18], which the
Court granted without prejudice [DE 28]. Ultimately,
Plaintiff adequately amended her complaint [DEs 29, 43], and
the case proceeded toward a bench trial. After discovery,
Defendants' Counsel, based on additional affidavits from
Defendants' employees, filed a motion for summary
judgment [DE 37]. Because of Plaintiffs "inconsistent
testimony to her written discovery responses, as well as
between questions within the same deposition,"
Defendants' Counsel titled their motion for summary
judgment as a motion to dismiss "for fraud on the
court." [DE 91');">91');">91');">91');">91');">91');">91');">91, p. 4]. The Court ultimately denied the
motion. [DE 51].
Accordingly,
the case proceeded to a bench trial on July 3, 2019, before
the Honorable United States District Judge William P.
Dimitrouleas. [DE 61]. At the conclusion of the bench trial,
Judge Dimitrouleas found in Plaintiffs favor, holding on July
9, 2019, that Defendants had failed to pay Plaintiff overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
[DE 62]. One month later, on August 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed
the instant motion for sanctions [DE 80');">80');">80');">80].
II.
Plaintiffs Pending Motion for Sanctions [DE 80');">80');">80');">80]
Plaintiff
argues the Court should sanction Defendants' Counsel
because "[h]aving read the complaint," they
"did not take the statements in it as true and file an
answer admitting liability." [DE 80');">80');">80');">80, p. 6]. She contends
that Defendants' Counsel should not have trusted their
client "and his minions" and "would have lost
nothing had [they] kept their threats to themselves. Having
not done so, [Defendants' Counsel] should be required to
pay for their misconduct." [DE 80');">80');">80');">80, p. 7].
Defendants'
Counsel vehemently oppose Plaintiffs' motion, arguing
that Plaintiffs motion is meritless as they were merely
providing their client with competent and zealous
representation.
III.
Discussion and Analysis
Plaintiff
seeks sanctions against Defendants' Counsel under both 28
U.S.C. § 1927 (which Plaintiffs counsel incorrectly
cited as "18 U.S.C. 1972") and this Court's
...