Real Estate Topics Forum :: View topic - John T. Reed’s opposition to Russ Whitney’s motion to delay

Guest

John T. Reed’s opposition to Russ Whitney’s motion to delay

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK, INC.,
a Florida Corporation, and RUSS WHITNEY,
an individual, DEFENDANT’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
v. TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE
JOHN T. REED, an individual, CASE NO.: 2:02-CV-288-FTM-29DNF

Defendant.

Defendant John T. Reed, pro se, opposes Plaintiffs’ motion for enlargement of time as follows:
1. By its very nature, a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute complains of delay by Plaintiffs. The present motion piles additional delay on top of the already complained of delay.
2. Since the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute was filed on March 2, 2003, Plaintiffs have filed:
• a motion in the Southern District for remand of their repetitive Broward County complaint to state court
• a motion for a five-day delay (which Defendant does not oppose) in responding to Defendant’s change-of-venue motion in the Southern District
• a motion in the Middle District to strike Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of a memorandum of law
3. In February, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a frivolous motion to strike Defendant’s letter to the Court, even though that letter had already been ordered returned to Defendant by the court. Plaintiffs also served a proposed Rule 11 motion on Defendant for his having sent the letter to the Court. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the letter as moot and Plaintiffs have since withdrawn the threat of a Rule 11 motion with regard to the letter..
4. Plaintiffs now complain in paragraph 8 of their motion for enlargement that denial will mean that they “…will be unfairly prejudiced as they will be denied a fair opportunity to properly respond to Defendant’s motion [to dismiss for lack of prosecution].” In fact, Plaintiffs have had the normal time long established by the Local Rules of of the Middle District, but have wasted a considerable portion of it filing improper motions for the purpose of delay in this Court and in the Southern District.
5. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike was filed in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, i.e.,
• it was presented for improper purpose, namely to harass Defendant and to cause unnecessary delay and to needlessly increase Defendant’s costs of litigation
• the legal contentions therein are not warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law
6. Because Defendant has not served a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 on Plaintiffs 21 days ago as required by its subsection (c)(1)(A), he cannot now move the court for such sanctions with regard to the Plaintiffs’ motion to strike. However, Defendant cites the violations of Rule 11 inherent in the motion to strike as an additional reason why it would be unjust to reward the motion to strike with additional delay.
7. Defendant served the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute on Plaintiffs by Federal Express, not mail, so no “Additional Time After Service by Mail” as required by F.R.C.P. 6(e) is warranted in this case.
8. F.R.C.P. 6(b) gives the Court “discretion” to enlarge the time, but does not require the Court to grant such enlargement. Futhermore, Rule 6(b) only allows the Court to exercise such discretion when “cause [has been] shown.” The only cause offered by Plaintiffs is its motion to strike for failure to include what Plaintiffs consider an adequate memorandum of law into Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Since the legal theory cited in the motion to strike is “not warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law,” and thereby violates F.R.C.P. 11, it is not a legitimate F.R.C.P. 6(b) cause.
9. As noted in Defendant’s affidavit attached to his motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, Plaintiffs’ former counsel Louis Gigliotti told Defendant that “Russ regrets filing this suit.” Plaintiffs apparently did not expect resistance from Defendant when they originally filed this action and are now trying to use their much deeper pockets to wear out the Defendant with delay and motion practice. Plaintiffs apparently are unable to find a face-saving way to exit. The Court should take this opportunity to end the matter by ending all delays by Plaintiffs.
For the reasons stated above, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion for enlargement of time to respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

March 14, 2003 _____________________
Date John T. Reed, Pro Se
Defendant
342 Bryan Drive
Alamo, CA 94507
Telephone: 925-820-6292
Fax: 925-820-1250
email: johnreed@johntreed.com
Copyright 2003 Last update 3/11/03
John T. Reed, a.k.a. John Reed, Jack Reed, 342 Bryan Drive, Alamo, CA 94507, Voice: 925-820-7262, Fax: 925-820-1259, Email: johnreed@johntreed.com

CONSUMER WARNING NOTICE: I recently saw Russ Whitney on a late night TV infomercial and then attended one of his "free" seminars. Unfortunately I believed all of their LIES and FRAUDULENT CLAIMS and I paid thousands of dollars to go to his "training camps". Needless to say I was clearly ripped off, cheated and lied to by Russ Whitney and his employees (band of thieves). My mistake was not searching the Internet to find out more about Russ Whitney and his company's HORRIBLE reputation for fraud, deception and illegal activities. Had I searched online I would have found out about THOUSANDS of customers being cheated, HUNDREDS of investigations by the Attorney General into the fraud of Russ Whitney and his company's, and that Russ Whitney himself is a CONVICTED VIOLENT FELON and spent years in PRISON. I saved the cached pages from the major search engines of the John Reed lawsuit with Russell Whitney and the TRUTH and FACTS that Reed discovered during his investigation of Whitney. I am posting this information on real estate discussion boards so other people do NOT get cheated and ripped off like I did.