1263-251B Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

HENRIETTA JOHNSON HEIR TO ETHEL MAE 

SMITH ESTATE,

 Plaintiff,

VS.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE 

REGISTERED HO LDER OF MORGAN 

STANLEY HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2007-

2 MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH 

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-2; et al.,

 Defendant(s).

______________________________/

CASE NO.: 9:20-CV-81102-AHS

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF 

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

COMES NOW, Defendant(s) ALDRIDGE PITE, LLC, JENNIFER TRAVIESO, 

JULIA POLETTI, ANDREW SCOLARO, PAUL VICKER, ATHMA BIRJU, 

CHRISTOPHER T. PECK, MATHEW KALE and NUSRAT MANSOOR (“Defendants”), by 

and though its undersigned attorney, and hereby responds to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 

File Amended Complaint filed on December 30, 2020 and Affidavits filed on February 1, 2021

in Support of Request for Entry of Default, and moves this Court to impose sanctions in 

Plaintiff for failure to comply with the Court’s prior order and applicable Rules of Federal 

Procedure, and shows:

FACTS

This is an action for damages by Plaintiff arising out of a state foreclosure case that was 

dismissed. Plaintiff is seeking millions of dollars alleging that Defendants violated the SCRA, 

Case 9:20-cv-81102-AMC Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2021 Page 1 of 6
1263-251B Page 2 of 6

the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, 18 USC §242 and that Defendants committed 

fraud. Defendants initially responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss. [DE 26] Undersigned 

counsel provided updated contact information as counsel for the Defendant on November 4, 

2020. [DE 28]

On November 13, 2020 the Court entered an Order denying Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss as moot and granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint requiring the Plaintiff 

to file the Amended Complaint separately by November 30, 2020. [DE 31]

Instead of filing an amended complaint pursuant to the Order, on December 30, 2020 

Plaintiff filed another Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint with an Amended 

Complaint. [DE 36] The December 30, 2020 Motion has not been ruled upon. Counsel for 

Defendants never received a copy of Plaintiff’s December 30, 2020 Motion for Leave to File 

Amended Complaint and it appears that Plaintiff has not included undersigned counsel on any 

service list. It was only by reviewing the docket that undersigned counsel discovered that 

Plaintiff had been filing additional motions in this matter. Counsel for Defendants also 

discovered that Plaintiff filed “Affidavits” to default Defendants, but the “Affidavits” are not

sworn and there is no evidence that Plaintiff served Defendants or undersigned counsel with 

the “Affidavits” for Default. 

Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order of November 13, 2020, has 

failed to properly serve counsel for Defendants and has improperly sought to default 

Defendants, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Motion for Leave to File Amended 

Complaint filed on December 30, 2020 and the “Affidavits” attempting to default Defendants 

be stricken and that the Court issue an order for Plaintiff to show cause why she should not be 

sanctioned for failure to properly serve undersigned counsel and for her attempts to improperly 

Case 9:20-cv-81102-AMC Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2021 Page 2 of 6
1263-251B Page 3 of 6

default Defendants, with a warning that continued violations will result in dismissal of the 

case.

ARGUMENT

Defendants aver that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order and failure to 

properly serve counsel for Defendants warrants the striking of her Motion for Leave to File 

Amended Complaint filed on December 30, 2020 and the “Affidavits” seeking default of 

Defendants.

On November 13, 2020 the Court entered an Order denying Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss as moot and granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint requiring the Plaintiff 

to file the Amended Complaint by November 30, 2020. [DE 31] Plaintiff failed to comply 

with that Order and instead filed another Motion to Amend the Complaint after the November 

30, 2020 deadline to file the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff failed to move for an extension of 

time to comply with the Order and has failed to explain or provide any rationale for not 

complying with the Order. 

Failure to comply with the Court’s Order may result in dismissal of the case with 

prejudice. Freeze v. Secretary, Dept. of Children and Families, 825 Fed.Appx. 666, 610 (11th

Cir. 2020). Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Order and instead file another Motion for 

Leave to File Amended Complaint has had the result of unnecessarily delaying this proceeding. 

There is no excuse for Plaintiff not to have filed the Amended Complaint separately as ordered. 

Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that this Court issue an order warning of 

dismissal in the event Plaintiff continues to fail to comply with the Court’s orders.

Rule 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that when a party is 

represented by an attorney, “service under this rule must be made on the attorney unless the 

court orders service on the party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b) (2020). Undersigned counsel made her 

Case 9:20-cv-81102-AMC Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2021 Page 3 of 6
1263-251B Page 4 of 6

appearance in this matter clear. [DE 28] Nevertheless, Plaintiff has failed to include 

undersigned counsel on any certificate of service and has failed to notify undersigned counsel 

of her filings. That is a direct violation of Rule 5(b) and, in conjunction with Plaintiff’s 

improper efforts to default Defendants, indicates that Plaintiff is deliberately attempting to 

preclude counsel for Defendants from defending this case and is acting in bad faith. 

Accordingly, Defendants request that Plaintiff’s filings that were made without notice to 

counsel for Defendants be stricken. See, e.g., Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft Corp., Inc., 775 F. 2d 

1440, 1446 (11th Cir. 1985)(discussing the broad scope of power federal courts hold to impose 

sanctions upon “recalcitrant lawyer and parties litigant”)

Finally, Plaintiff’s effort to default Defendants via unsworn “Affidavits” is improper 

and in violation of Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff never provided 

counsel for Defendants an opportunity to respond to her filings because she has not served 

counsel for Defendants. In addition, she never filed or served an actual pleading (as opposed 

to her Motions to file amended pleadings) and, therefore, any request for a default is improper. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 55 (2020). By filing motions without providing notice of them to counsel for 

Defendants and then representing to the Court that Defendants should be defaulted for failure 

to respond is a violation of each party’s duty of candor to this Court. Accordingly, Defendants

respectfully request that this Court consider sanctions under Rule 11 why Plaintiff should not 

be sanctioned for this behavior by dismissing this case.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, , Defendant(s) ALDRIDGE PITE, LLC, JENNIFER 

TRAVIESO, JULIA POLETTI, ANDREW SCOLARO, PAUL VICKER, ATHMA BIRJU, 

CHRISTOPHER T. PECK, MATHEW KALE and NUSRAT MANSOOR, respectfully 

request that this Court strike Plaintiff’s December 30, 2020 Motion for Leave to File Amended 

Complaint and Plaintiff’s Affidavits filed on February 1, 2021 for defaults, and that the Court 

Case 9:20-cv-81102-AMC Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2021 Page 4 of 6
1263-251B Page 5 of 6

impose sanctions and warnings as it deems appropriate for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 

the Court’s Order of November 13, 2020, failure to provide notice to counsel for Defendants

of her filings, and Plaintiff’s misrepresentation to the Court that Defendants should be 

defaulted.

Respectfully Submitted,

ALDRIDGE | PITE, LLP

Attorney for Defendants’

1615 South Congress Avenue, Suite 200

Delray Beach, FL 33445

Telephone: (561) 392-6391

Facsimile: (561) 807-3148

By: ___________________________________

Allegra Knopf, Esq.

FBN: 0307660

Primary E-Mail: ServiceMail@aldridgepite.com

Secondary E-mail: aknopf@aldridgepite.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this _____ day of February, 2021, I electronically cause 

the foregoing document to be filed with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that 

the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record in the manner 

specified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.

Tucker Perry

5720 Premier Park Drive

West Palm Beach, FL 33407

Case 9:20-cv-81102-AMC Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2021 Page 5 of 6
1263-251B Page 6 of 6

Anthoney Bradley

624 SW 12th Street

Belle Glade, FL 33440

By E-Mail:

Plaintiff, Henrietta Johnson Heir to Ethel Mae Smith Estate

265 NW 10th Street

Belle Glade, FL 33430

E-mail: 67hajohnson@gmail.com

Steven M. Stepper, Es q.

1615 Forum Place, Suite 200

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

E-mail: stepperlaw@aol.com

Sherrie Norton

Palm Beach County Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley Courthouse

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

E-mail: CAD-DivisionAl@pbcgov.org

Bonnie Taylor

6330 SE 41st Court

Ocala, FL 34480

E-mail: tpahokee@aol.com

By: __________________________

Allegra Knopf, Esq.

FBN: 0307660

Case 9:20-cv-81102-AMC Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2021 Page 6 of 6