MORANCY v. REGAN HOSPITALITY LLC
1:24-cv-24663
| S.D. Fla. | May 28, 2025Background
- Defendants Regan Hospitality LLC and Christopher Regan repeatedly failed to comply with multiple court orders requiring engagement in the case.
- Defendants' former counsel withdrew, and the court ordered Regan Hospitality LLC to retain new counsel and Christopher Regan to indicate if he would proceed pro se.
- Despite several extensions and explicit warnings from the court, Defendants failed to either retain replacement counsel (for the LLC) or communicate compliance, resulting in continuous delays.
- The court specifically notified Defendants multiple times, and records show they received the orders through various means, including email and overnight delivery.
- Plaintiff filed motions to compel Defendants to participate in scheduling the court-mandated settlement conference, but new defense counsel could not reach the clients and sought to withdraw.
- Judge Williams and the magistrate judge both extended deadlines and issued show cause orders, warning Defendants that failure to comply would result in their pleadings being stricken and default entered against them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to comply with court orders | Defendants failed to follow orders | Claimed late receipt of orders, personal circumstances, and intent to comply | Default should be entered against Defendants |
| Representation requirement for LLC | LLCs cannot proceed pro se | No evidence LLC retained counsel as required | Default justified for noncompliance |
| Repeated extensions and warnings | Enough opportunities already given | Cited effort to comply and requested more time | Further delay not justified |
| Impact on court process | Defendant’s delays hinder proceedings | Defendants cite communication issues with counsel and unforeseen personal circumstances | Defendants’ pattern of noncompliance noted |
Key Cases Cited
- Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381 (11th Cir. 1985) (business entities must be represented by counsel in federal court)
- Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359 (11th Cir. 1987) (affirming default after repeated noncompliance with court orders)
- Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (courts have inherent authority to manage their dockets and sanction dilatory parties)
- Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989) (district court may dismiss for failure to follow court orders)
- Bell v. Fla. Highway Patrol, 476 F. App’x 856 (11th Cir. 2012) (sanctions, including dismissal, are appropriate where court orders are disregarded)