Bernath v. Seavey, 2:15-cv-00358

Background

Plaintiff Daniel Bernath repeatedly moved to strike Defendants Mark Seavey’s and The American Legion’s answers and counterclaims and sought to revoke pro hac vice status of defense counsel John D. Mason, alleging perjury, fraud on the court, contempt, and refusal to obey court orders.
Plaintiff filed multiple related motions between February and March 2017 challenging answers, oppositions, and summary judgment filings; Defendants responded to each motion.
Several of Plaintiff’s motions relied on allegations that defendants and counsel submitted false affidavits and mischaracterized Seavey’s blogging activity as personal rather than Legion-related.
The court reviewed the pleadings under Rule 12(f) (motions to strike) and Rule 11 (sanctions) standards and considered procedural compliance requirements for Rule 11 sanctions.
The court found Plaintiff’s motions were largely repetitive, non-specific, and failed to meet Rule 11’s procedural 21-day safe-harbor; Plaintiff did not identify or substantiate the alleged perjury or fraud with particularity.
The court denied all substantive relief sought by Plaintiff (motions to strike, requests to revoke pro hac vice admission, and requests to file additional replies), and denied one motion as moot because the targeted summary-judgment motions had been denied without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Seavey’s and Legion’s Answers and Counterclaims should be struck under Rule 12(f)	Bernath argued the pleadings contain scandalous, immaterial statements and violate court orders, warranting strike	Defendants maintained their pleadings relate to the controversy and are proper	Denied — pleadings have possible relationship to controversy and are not plainly confounding or prejudicial
Whether sanctions and other relief under Rule 11 are warranted for alleged perjury/fraud on the court	Bernath alleged defendants and counsel submitted false affidavits and committed perjury/fraud	Defendants opposed; court noted Plaintiff failed to follow Rule 11 safe-harbor and failed to particularize claims	Denied — no Rule 11 safe-harbor compliance and insufficient evidence of perjury/fraud
Whether pro hac vice admission of counsel John D. Mason should be revoked	Bernath sought revocation based on alleged misconduct, perjury, and refusal to follow orders	Defense counsel opposed; court reviewed allegations and filings	Denied — allegations unsupported; no basis to revoke pro hac vice status
Whether Plaintiff should be permitted to file additional reply briefs to respond to defendants’ oppositions	Bernath sought leave to file replies asserting retained counsel’s views and additional allegations	Defendants opposed further briefing as unnecessary; court reviewed submissions already filed	Denied — court found no good cause and treated existing submissions as replies; additional briefing not required

Key Cases Cited

Reyher v. Trans World Airlines, 881 F. Supp. 574 (M.D. Fla. 1995) (Rule 12(f) strikes limited to matters with no possible relationship to controversy)
Jones v. Int’l Riding Helmets, Ltd., 49 F.3d 692 (11th Cir. 1995) (standards for Rule 11 sanctions)
Massengale v. Ray, 267 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2001) (purpose of Rule 11 sanctions to deter frivolous or abusive filings)
Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2002) (sanctions warranted for deliberate indifference to obvious facts, not mere weakness of evidence)
Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516 (11th Cir. 1998) (distinguishing weak evidence from sanctionable conduct)