Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_13-cv-00258/USCOURTS-alsd-1_13-cv-00258-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BA

---

IN	THE	UNITED	STATES	DISTRICT	COURT	FOR	THE

SOUTHERN	DISTRICT	OF	ALABAMA

SOUTHERN	DIVISION

In	Re: )

)

RICHARD	D.	HORNE and	 )

PATRICIA	NELSON	HORNE, )

)

Debtors, )

)

MARY	BETH	MANTIPLY, )

) CIVIL	ACTION	NO.	13-00258-CB-B

Plaintiff/Appellant, )

)

v. )

)

RICHARD	D.	HORNE	and )

PATRICIA	NELSON	HORNE, )

)

Defendants/Appellees. )

ORDER

This	matter	is	before	the	Court	on	appellant’s	motion	to	set	aside	the	order	

dated	May	29,	2013 in	which	the	Court	granted appellees’	motion	to	strike	the	

appellant’s	brief.		(Doc.	12.)		Appellant	asserts	that	the	brief	should	not	be	stricken	

because	it	was	timely	filed.		As	the	order	makes	clear,	the	brief	has	been	stricken	for	

failure	to	comply	with	the	format	set	forth	in	Rule	8010(a)(1),	not	for	untimely	

filing.		Moreover,	appellant	may	cure	this	defect	be	filing	a	brief	in	the	proper	format	

by	the	deadline	set	forth	in	the	order.		The	motion	to	set	aside	is,	therefore, DENIED.

In	her	motion (Doc.	12),	appellant	also	seeks	Rule	11 sanctions	against	

appellees’	counsel.		 Rule	11	contains	a	safe	harbor	provision	that	provides	the	

opposing	party	with	21	days	to	correct	the	alleged	violation.		The	provision	states,	in	

relevant	part:

Case 1:13-cv-00258-CB-B Document 13 Filed 05/30/13 Page 1 of 2
A	motion	for	sanctions	must	be	made	separately	from	any	

other	motion	and	must	describe	the	specific	conduct	that	allegedly	

violates	Rule	11(b).		The	motion	must	be	served	under	Rule	5,	but	it	

must	not	be	filed	or	presented	to	the	court	if	the	challenged	paper,	

claim,	defense,	contention	or	denial	is	withdrawn	or	appropriately	

corrected	within	21	days	after	service	or	within	another	time	the	

court	sets.

Fed.	R.	Civ.	P.	11(c)(2).			As	appellant	has	failed	to	comply	with	these	requirements,	

the	request	for	sanction	is	DENIED.

1

DONE	and	ORDERED this	the	30th day	of	May,	2013.

s/Charles	R.	Butler,	Jr.

Senior	United	States	District	Judge

																																																							 1 The	Court	also	notes	that	appellant’s	request	for	sanctions	is	based	on	an	

erroneous	assertion.	Appellant	avers	that	appellees’	counsel	would	have	known	that	

the	brief	had	been	filed	if	he	had	made	a	reasonable	review	of	the	Clerk’s	record.		

The	brief	had not	been	docketed	and	did	not	appear	on	the	docket	sheet	at	the	time	

the	motion	to	strike	was	filed.		As	stated	in	the	Court’s	previous	order,	“[o]n	May	29,	

the	Hornes	filed	a	motion	to	strike	the	appellant’s	brief	(Doc.	9),	which	at	that	time	

did	not	appear	to	have	been	filed.		Shortly	thereafter,	the	appellant’s	brief	was	located	

by	the	Clerk	of	Court	and	docketed	(Doc.	10).”		(Emphasis	added.)	Hence,	the	

appellant’s	brief	was	not	part	of	the	public	record	at	the	time	the	motion	to	strike	

was	filed.

Case 1:13-cv-00258-CB-B Document 13 Filed 05/30/13 Page 2 of 2