UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-22671-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

DELIO BATISTA, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

AVANT ASSURANCE INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendants Avant Assurance, Inc., Reinier 

Cortes, and Andrea Gonzalez Quintero’s Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 

70] (the “Corrected Motion”), filed on May 19, 2023. Defendants previously filed a First Motion 

for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 63] (the “First Motion”) and Statement of Material Facts [ECF 

No. 59] (the “First SOF”). The Court denied the First Motion and SOF because they were

deficient and failed to comply with the Local Rules. (See generally May 18, 2023 Order [ECF 

No. 67]). Remarkably, Defendants’ Corrected Motion and new Statement of Material Facts 

[ECF No. 70-1] (the “SOF”) are still deficient and fail to comply with the Local Rules. 

Under Local Rule 56.1(a)(1), “[a] motion for summary judgment . . . shall [] be 

accompanied by a separate and contemporaneously filed and served Statement of Material 

Facts.” Id. (alterations added). “All Statements of Material Facts . . . shall be filed and served as 

separate documents and not as exhibits or attachments.” Id. 56.1(b)(1) (alteration added). “If a 

party files and serves any Statement of Material Facts that does not comply with this rule, then 

the Court may strike the Statement, require immediate compliance, grant relief to any opposing 

party for any prejudice . . . or enter other sanctions that the Court deems appropriate.” Id. 

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 72 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 22-22671-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

56.1(d) (alteration added). 

Despite the May 18, 2023 Order, Defendants have once again violated Local Rule 56.1.

The SOF is filed as an attachment to the Motion, even though the Local Rules expressly require

that the SOF be “filed and served as [a] separate document[] and not as [an] exhibit[] or 

attachment[].” Local Rule 56.1(b)(1) (alterations added). Clearly, Defendants did not heed the 

warning that the “Local Rule serves ‘to make review of summary judgment motions less 

burdensome on the Court.’” (May 18, 2023 Order 2 (citation omitted)).1

The Corrected Motion is also — once again — flawed. (See id.). The Court cautioned 

Defendants that their First Motion was deficient because it failed “to cite either the [First SOF] 

or any other record materials.” (Id. 2 (alteration added; citation omitted)). Yet, aside from a 

cursory recitation of some language from the SOF (see Corrected Mot. 2–3), Defendants’ second 

attempt otherwise does little to remedy that prior deficiency (see id. 5–11). The Court reiterates 

that it “is under no duty to scour the record for facts not cited by the parties[.]” (May 18, 2023 

Order 2 (alteration added; citation omitted)).

Rather than continue policing Defendants’ violations of the same Local Rule, the Court 

opts to deny the Corrected Motion without leave to refile. See Stern v. SK Golden Inv., LLC., 

No. 21-20012-Civ, 2022 WL 4775084, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2022) (denying summary 

judgment because of repeated non-compliance with the Local Rules); Ocean’s Bar & Grill, Inc. 

v. Indemnity Ins. Corp. RRG, No. 11-61577-Civ, 2012 WL 2675435, at *3 (S.D. Fla. July 6, 

2012) (denying plaintiff’s motion because by repeatedly not complying with Local Rule 56.1, the 

plaintiff failed to “inform the court of the basis for its motion”); D & M Carriers, LLC v. M/V 

Thor Spirit, No. 11-80722-Civ, 2012 WL 4747198 at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2012) (noting the 

1 The Court relies on the pagination generated by the Case Management/Electronic Case Files system, 

which appears in the header on all filings.

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 72 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 22-22671-CIV-ALTONAGA/Torres

court’s authority to deny summary judgment for violations of Local Rule 56.1). Defendants 

were given the opportunity to correct their deficiencies yet have failed to do so; the Court will 

not squander its and the parties’ resources further by insisting on Defendants’ compliance with 

the Rules. See United States v. Marder, 183 F. Supp. 3d 1231, 1235–36 (S.D. Fla. 2016). 

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Corrected Motion [ECF No. 70] is DENIED

with prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 22nd day of May, 2023.

________________________________________

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 72 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 3 of 3