Motion to Strike Sanctions
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 502011CPOO5095XXXXSB
JASON HALLE, Plaintiff,
PETER HALLE, Defendant.
PLAINTIFF JASON HALLE’S MOTIOIN TO STRIKE PARAGRAPHS 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 10 OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FILED ON JANUARY 7, 2015
Plaintiff, Jason Halle, pursuant to Rule 1.140(f) of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves this Court to strike paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10 of Defendant Peter Halle’s Motion for Sanctions. In support Plaintiff states as follows:
- In ¶ 1 of the Defendant’s motion he fabricates that, “Since that initial filing, Plaintiff amended his complaint five times and attempted to amend a sixth time.”
- The Plaintiff has only amended his complaint successfully three times during this action as confirmed by the docket and the court’s orders. They are as follows:
- On February 22, 2012, the original complaint was amended with the First Amended Complaint by entitlement.
- On May 30, 2012, the Defendant stipulated to the entry of an agreed order on plaintiff’s motion to obtain leave of court to amend his First Amended Complaint and file his Third Amended Complaint. (Exhibit A) On June 4, 2012, the Honorable James Martz signed the agreed upon order. (Exhibit B)
- The Defendant prepared an agreed order on plaintiff’s motion to obtain leave of court to amend his Third Amended Complaint and file his Fourth Amended Complaint. On April 16, 2013, the Honorable David E. French sign the agreed upon order. (Exhibit C)
- No other amendments were allowed by or filed with this Honorable Court.
- It is total fabrication that the Plaintiff amended his complaint five times. It is not supported by the docket or the orders of the Honorable Court in this case. It follows that the Plaintiff could not have attempted to amend his complaint for a sixth time as the Defense states, since he only had successfully amended his complaint three times. These false and inflated numbers of amendments claimed by the Defense in ¶ 1 should be stricken as the statements are untrue and designed to be impertinent, inflame the court and prejudice the Plaintiff.
- In ¶ 2 the Defense claims, “The trial court orally stated that it was dismissing the complaint with prejudice because Plaintiff had numerous chances to try and state a cause of action and he repeatedly failed to do so”. There was a court reporter at his hearing. There is no reference to the court having made such a statement on the record. There are no motions to dismiss that were granted that would suggest this was true. This totally false statement is a fabrication and is designed to inflame the court and prejudice the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s claim is totally unsubstantiated and should be stricken from the motion.
- Again, in ¶3 of the Defendant’s motion he fabricates that the Plaintiff sought to amend his Complaint for a sixth time. Please refer to Plaintiff’s ¶’s 1-4 above. This is another totally false statement fabricated and designed to inflame the court and prejudice the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s claim is again totally unsubstantiated and should be stricken from the motion.
- In ¶ 4 Defendant states that, “In his appeal, Plaintiff sought to divert the appellate court’s attention from his pleading deficiencies by baselessly attacking Defendant Peter Halle’s counsel, John G. “Jay” White, III, with unfounded claims that Mr. White mislead this court at the hearing on the motion to dismiss”.
- This is untrue and as one can clearly see in the transcript of the hearing, White fraudulently told the Court, “…the plaintiff keeps filing these lawsuits, they keep getting dismissed, chewing up money, you know, money potentially that’s in the trust and there’s not a lot of it and I think it’s time that Your Honor dismiss it with prejudice.” (Exhibit D, page 11, lines 14-18)
- The Plaintiff did not baselessly attack Mr. White as the Defense claims. As the transcript confirms, Mr. White clearly did try to mislead the court with fabricated, untrue statements. ¶ 4 should be stricken as it is not true, it is impertinent and is designed to inflame the court and prejudice the Plaintiff.
- The Defendant again gives impertinent information in ¶ 10 that is designed to inflame the court and prejudice the Plaintiff by stating, “This Court then determined that a dismissal with prejudice was appropriate, especially in light of the fact that repeated opportunities afforded Plaintiff to amend his complaint to state a cause of action.” It is not even clear exactly what the Defense counsel is trying to state here.
- Only Mr. White stated at the hearing that there had been dismissals for failure to state a cause of action. The only person in a Trial Court that has the authority to determine if a complaint fails to state a cause of action is the judge at a hearing on a motion to dismiss. There had not been one dismissal granted by a trial court judge as confirmed by the docket or one dismissal amendment afforded the Plaintiff after his first dismissal for failure to state a cause of action. This is also confirmed by the docket.
- Paragraph 10 needs to be stricken because it is unclear, untrue, impertinent, and designed to inflame the court and prejudice the Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court strike ¶’s 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10 of Defendant Peter Halle’s Motion for Sanctions, because they are impertinent, not true and they are designed to inflame the court and prejudice the Plaintiff.
And for such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
JASON HALLE, Pro Se
This motion is a public record and is filed with the Circuit Court for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida.