ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
PLAINTIFF'S ADDITIONAL MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 97-1197-CIV-ORL-19B
MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR. ,
AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR
CHOICE, INC. , a Florida Corporation,
EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR. , and
PATRICIA B. WINDLE.
ADDITIONAL MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF TOGETHER WITH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Plaintiff, Meredith T. Raney, Jr., by and through his undersigned attorney, hereby makes an Additional Motion For a Judgment on the Pleadings in his favor, in support thereof saying:
1. This motion is in addition to a similar motion which was served on January 14, 1999.
2. The Defendants did not obey the Scheduling Order entered on February 2, 1998 as they did not enter into or execute the Pretrial Statement served on January 4, 1999, copy of which is attached.
3. It is appropriate to strike or dismiss the Defendants' pleadings, including answers, defenses and claims against the Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves that judgment in his favor be entered for the statutory damages on each of the three counts specified in his complaint, namely $5,000 per count; that punitive damages be determined by a jury; and, that Plaintiff be awarded costs and attorney's fees for the additional reasons stated herein.
The present motion states an additional basis for relief but is otherwise quite similar to the motion served on January 14, 1999. Much of the following Memorandum is identical to the first.
LOCAL RULE 3.01 (g)
Normally opposing counsel would be contacted as a prerequisite to filing motions. However, this rule makes exceptions for motions to dismiss and motions for judgment on the pleadings. Thus there was no need to consult opposing counsel before filing this motion.
LOCAL RULE 3.01 (h)
This rule requires that all dispositive motions be labeled as such; this has been done.
The Defendants have not met the standard of conduct required by the Case Management and Scheduling Order in that they did not execute the Pretrial Statement, copy of which is attached hereto. The Defendants should suffer the consequences of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 (f) which permits utilization of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) (2) (B) and (C). These latter rules contemplate orders refusing to allow the disobedient parties to support or oppose designated claims or defenses and also orders allowing designated facts to be taken as established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of a person obtaining the order. In other words, Defendants have conceded the case.
Defendants have steadfastly maintained their position: they do not like this case; they do not like the rules and they are not going to abide by them. Plaintiff realizes that he can not drag the Defendants before the jury to establish liability in this case. He acknowledges their concession of liability.
WHEREFORE, the relief requested in the foregoing motion should be granted.
Christopher F. Sapp <signed>
Post Office Box 1012
Lehigh Acres, Florida 33970
Florida Bar No.: 0097823
Attorney for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to Roy Lucas, Esquire, Post Office Box 1433, Melbourne, Florida 32902, Susan England, Esquire, 2805 Lakeview Drive, Fern Park, Florida 32730 and to Lawrence M. Siff, Esquire, O'Connor & Meyers, PA, 2801 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor, (Coral Gables) Miami, Florida 33134 this 19th day of January, 1999.
Christopher F. Sapp <signed>
|TOP OF PAGE| |HOME| |DISCLAIMER| |SEARCH| |LINKS| |NEWS|
|EMAIL US| |SUNTREE| |AWARE WOMAN| |ABORTIONISTS| |LAWSUITS|
|VICTIMS OF CHOICE| |SURVIVORS| |INVESTIGATIONS|