Docket entry 22, 7 August 2023 · source · PDF · 23 pages
Docket text. MOTION to Remand to State Court For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs, and for an Order To Show Cause Why Plaintiff Should Not Be Sanctioned for Vexatious and Dilatory Tactics by MVP Realty Associates LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Notice of Removal, # 2 Exhibit State Court Order Setting Hearings, # 3 Exhibit Second Notice of Removal, # 4 Exhibit Email Comm re Removal Juridiction, # 5 Exhibit Third Notice of Removal, # 6 Exhibit State Court Mot to Show Cause, # 7 Exhibit Fourth Notice of Removal, # 8 Exhibit Email Comm re Cited Authority, # 9 Exhibit SDNY Order Mata v Avianca, # 10 Exhibit Good Faith Correspondence Aug 7)(Joseph, Nabil) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell. (Entered: 08/07/2023)
IV. Clark Pear’s History of Abusing the Removal Process, citing non-existent Judicial Opinions or Misrepresenting the Cited Cases, and Willfulness of Such Conduct 30. Clark Pear’s dilatory tactics to deprive and forestall state court actions are not unique to the instant lawsuit.
Page 11 of 23 31. In addition to the dilatory tactics, Clark Pear and his counsel have a history of citing non-existent cases or misrepresenting what the cited case actually stands for . The undersigned counsel’s office requested Clark Pear’s counsel to furnish full text ver sions of certain specifically enumerated cases that were cited by Clark Pear’s counsel.
The undersigned has done a thorough search for this case through Westlaw, LexisNexis and a simple google search and was unable to locate a case with that name in the State of Florida. Page 16 of 23 Moreover, it has become apparent that there are numerous cases cited in the State Action which are also either fabricated cases or the purported holdings of the cases are not accurate . These pleadings and motions have been also filed in this Federal action by the Plaintiff.
Here the Plaintiff does an extensive case brief on this purported case. However, upon further review, this case does not exist nor has there been a case with that name, in the Florida Supreme Court in 1984. b. Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v Del Monte Gourmet Foods 932 So.2d 559 (Fla.
Stat. §672.301 actually states: “The obligation of the seller is to transfer and deliver and that of the buyer is to accept and pay in accordance with the contract.” The statute cited by the Plaintiff is not the correct statute. b. Graham v Burnette Upon review, this case does not exist nor has there been a case with that name, in the Florida Court System. 4.
Moreover, the undersigned has been unable to locate any case with that name in the Florida Court System or in the 4th District Court of Appeals for the State of Florida. As evident by the above motions and pleadings, the Plaintiff in this matter has filed fabricated case law in an effort to bolster their position , persuade the tribunal, and to gain an advantage over the Defendant. Page 21 of 23 The Defendant’s counsel has brought this i nformation to the Plaintiff’s counsel’s attention and requested the Plaintiff’s counsel provide the Defendant’s counsel with all of his case law.
As a result of the Plaintiff’s shocking conduct, Defendant requests that this Court issue an Order to Show Cause as to why the Plaintiff’s counsel should not be sanctioned for citing to fabricated case law in an effort to bolster his client's position to the detriment of the Defendant.