From The Doc App, Inc. v. Leafwell, Inc., decided Nov. 26 by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell (M.D. Fla.):
The Court finds that Mr. Castro violated Rule 11(b) in filing the Motion for TRO and imposes sanctions. His motion contained fabricated citations, citations that do not contain quoted language, and citations that do not relate to the purported proposition. While Mr. Castro purports to "own" his mistakes and uses words like "respectfully," his defiant tone and condescending communications with and about his opposing counsel, Jody A. Stafford, undermine any supposed respectful sentiment. Rather than take responsibility for the legal inaccuracies permeating his Motion for TRO, Mr. Castro's response to the Order to Show Cause is as colossal a collection of excuses and projection as the Court has seen in 25 years on the bench.
Here are a few examples. He claims that Henson v. Allison Transmission, Inc. exists. The Court checked his original citation in the Motion for TRO. The Henson citation in the original motion—No. 6:16-cv-1223-Orl-41DCI, 2017 WL 59085 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2017)—does not exist. Sidestepping the issue, Mr. Castro explains that he intended to cite Henson v. Allison Transmission, No. 07-80382-CIV, 2008 WL 239153 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2008). That case does exist. But it does not matter what counsel intended to cite. It is neither the Court's nor opposing counsel's job to identify his fake citations and intuit what he meant.
Anyway, the Court read the version of Henson that Mr. Castro claims
stands for the proposition that a party may pursue injunctive relief when continued harm to its business and customer base is likely without court intervention. It discusses the court's authority to act where equity demands it, even in early stages of litigation. The citation error was clerical—not substantive. A copy of this case is incorporated hereto as Exhibit A.
Defendant argues that this version "does not concern injunctive relief whatsoever." Yet again, Defendant is correct. Mr. Castro's inaccurate characterization of Henson is beyond perplexing. The Henson he intended to cite does not stand for the proposition in his original explanatory parenthetical: "conduct violating established regulations is unfair under FDUTPA." Rather, Henson concerns a plaintiff's request to review his lemon law case and involves breach of warranty-based claims, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the Uniform Commercial Code. See Henson, 2008 WL 239153, at *2. The word "injunction" does not appear once. Nor do the terms "unfair," "deceptive," "FDUTPA," or "regulation." Ultimately, Mr. Castro misrepresents Henson to the Court not once, but twice.
