Coleman et al v. Burger King Corporation
| Florida Southern District Court | |
| Judge: | Roy K Altman |
| Referred: | Lisette M Reid |
| Case #: | 1:22-cv-20925 |
| Nature of Suit | 370 Torts - Personal Property - Other Fraud |
| Cause | 28:1332 Diversity |
| Case Filed: | Mar 28, 2022 |
| Terminated: | Feb 03, 2023 |
| Last checked: Saturday Sep 24, 2022 5:13 AM EDT |
|
Defendant
Burger King Corporation
|
Represented By
|
|
Mediator
Rodney A. Max
Upchurch Watson White & Max 19 West Flagler St Suite 420
Miami, FL 33130 |
|
|
Plaintiff
Jared Drucker
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Chris Sours
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Anthony Scott
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Angela Runner
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Sybil Peachlum
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
John Passarella
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Michael Mrofchak
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Richard Moore
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Jesus Mendez
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
William Malfese
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Andrew Lingoes
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Dana Dillon
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Victor Castillo
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Sha Badgett
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Carl Anello
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Summer Adamski
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Madelyn Salzman
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Matthew Fox
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Marco DiLeonardo
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Walter Coleman
|
Represented By
|
GPO
Aug 23 2023
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 8/23/2023. See attached document for full details. (scn) |
| Docket last updated: 04/24/2024 11:59 PM EDT |
| Thursday, November 16, 2023 | ||
| 77 | 77
order
Order on Motion for Sanctions
Thu 11/16 6:46 PM
PAPERLESS ORDER denying 71 the Defendant's Motion for Sanctions. The Court needs time to adjudicate70 the pending Motion to Dismiss. We recognize that the Defendant "asks the Court, as a Rule 11 sanction, to strike...false allegations, and/or to take judicial notice of the relevant portions of the discovery record, when ruling on BKC's motion to dismiss the SAC." Motion for Sanctions at 8. But "[c]ourts normally consider Rule 11 motions attacking pleadings at the end of litigation." E-Z Dock, Inc. v. Snap Dock, LLC , 2021 WL 4050951, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2021) (Chappell, J.) (denying motion for sanctions as "premature" because "E-Z Dock's claims are not so patently frivolous that the [c]ourt should consider sanctions at this stage"); Nutramax Labs., Inc. v. Zesty Paws LLC , 2023 WL 4493960, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 24, 2023) (Hoffman Price, Mag. J.) (denying motion for sanctions without prejudice because "most of [d]efendants' arguments for sanctions under Rule 11 seek to test the veracity, substance, or merits of the allegations of the third amended complaint"). In this case, we'll allow the Defendant to re-file its Motion for Sanctions after we adjudicate the pending Motion to Dismiss. One more thing: The Defendant has complied with the "Safe Harbor" provision of Rule 11(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and thus need not submit a second "Safe Harbor" letter before refiling its Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 11/16/2023. (lcr) |
|
| Thursday, November 09, 2023 | ||
| 76 | 76
respm
Reply to Response to Motion
Thu 11/09 4:22 PM
Defendant's REPLY to Response to Motion re71 Defendant's MOTION for Sanctions for Plaintiffs' Violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) |
|
| 75 | 75
respm
Reply to Response to Motion
Thu 11/09 4:21 PM
Defendant's REPLY to Response to Motion re70 Defendant's MOTION TO DISMISS69 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) |
|