UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-CV-23745-SCOLA/GOODMAN

ELIEZER TAVERAS, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

ATTORNEYS FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE A CONFERRAL CERTIFICATION

Pro se Plaintiff Eliezer Taveras (“Plaintiff”) 1 filed Plaintiff [sic] Motion to 

Disqualify Attorneys Robert P. Elson and David S. Willig [ECF No. 55]. United States 

District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. referred this case to the Undersigned “for a ruling on 

all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and for a report and recommendation on any 

dispositive matters, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Magistrate Judge Rule 1.” 

[ECF No. 34]. For the reasons stated herein, the Undersigned strikes Plaintiff [sic] Motion 

1 “‘Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by 

attorneys’ and are liberally construed.” Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 

2011) (quoting Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)). Liberal

construction, however, does not mean that a court may “act as de facto counsel or rewrite 

an otherwise deficient pleading to sustain an action.” Bilal v. Geo Care, LLC, 981 F.3d 903, 

911 (11th Cir. 2020). 

Case 1:22-cv-23745-RNS Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2023 Page 1 of 5
2 

to Disqualify Attorneys Robert P. Elson and David S. Willig [ECF No. 55] for failure to 

comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)’s pre-filing conferral certification. 

I. Discussion

With certain inapplicable exceptions, Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) states that: 

counsel for the movant shall confer (orally or in writing), or make 

reasonable effort to confer (orally or in writing), with all parties or nonparties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in a good 

faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues to be raised in the motion. 

Counsel conferring with movant’s counsel shall cooperate and act in good 

faith in attempting to resolve the dispute. At the end of the motion, and 

above the signature block, counsel for the moving party shall certify 

either: (A) that counsel for the movant has conferred with all parties or 

non-parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in a 

good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion and has been 

unable to do so; or (B) that counsel for the movant has made reasonable 

efforts to confer with all parties or non-parties who may be affected by 

the relief sought in the motion, which efforts shall be identified with 

specificity in the statement (including the date, time, and manner of each 

effort), but has been unable to do so. If certain of the issues have been 

resolved by agreement, the certification shall specify the issues so resolved 

and the issues remaining unresolved. Failure to comply with the 

requirements of this Local Rule may be cause for the Court to grant or 

deny the motion and impose on counsel an appropriate sanction, which 

may include an order to pay the amount of the reasonable expenses 

incurred because of the violation, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. 

S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(3) (emphasis added). 

Local Rule 1.1 states that “[w]hen used in these Local Rules, the word “counsel” 

shall be construed to apply to a party if that party is proceeding pro se.” S.D. Fla. L.R. 

1.1. Therefore, Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) applies to Plaintiff. 

Case 1:22-cv-23745-RNS Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2023 Page 2 of 5
3

In the body of the instant motion, Plaintiff even acknowledges his conferral 

obligation, when discussing his earlier-filed August 3, 2023 Motion to Change, Amend, 

or Modify Court Order:

On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff had planned to file a motion, asking this Court 

to amend or modify this Court’s order [ECF 44]. In compliance with this 

Court Rule 7.1(a)(3), in good faith, Plaintiff consulted the attorneys to see 

if they would oppose the motion.

Continuing with the threatening behavior, the attorneys replied 

threatening Plaintiff that they would be seeking sanctions against him, 

trying to intimidate him and impede him from seeking relief. See Exhibit 

“1” attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

[ECF No. 55, p. 3 (emphasis added)].

The Undersigned notes that this is not the first time Plaintiff has run afoul of Local 

Rule 7.1(a)(3)’s conferral requirement. Judge Scola has already warned Plaintiff that he 

must comply with his conferral obligation:

PAPERLESS ORDER: The Court grants [26] [27] [ ] Plaintiff’s motions for 

extensions of time to respond to Defendant Lourdes Gomes, Alpine Towing 

Inc., and Larry J. Saravia’s [19] [20] motions to dismiss. [ ] Plaintiff must file 

his responses to those motions on or before February 3, 2023. [ ] Plaintiff, 

however, is cautioned that simply sending an email and awaiting a 

response does not amount to a good faith effort to confer under Local 

Rule 7.1(a)(3). Going forward, [ ] Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure 

to comply with the Local Rules may be grounds for the Court to deny his 

request for future relief.

[ECF No. 28 (emphasis added)].

Compliance with the Local Rules is mandatory. See Andreu v. Hewlett–Packard Co., 

No. 15-23270-CIV, 2016 WL 1697088, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2016), report and 

Case 1:22-cv-23745-RNS Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2023 Page 3 of 5
4

recommendation adopted in [ECF No. 92] (“Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

nor the Local Rules are aspirational.”). “[A] valid local rule has the force of law.” Cheshire 

v. Bank of Am., NA, 351 F. App’x 386, 388 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Weil v. Neary, 278 U.S. 

160, 169 (1929)). Non-compliance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) is grounds for denying the 

motion. See Starship 1, LLC v. Sky Support, LLC, No. 22-20090-CIV, 2023 WL 5231807, at *1 

(S.D. Fla. June 14, 2023) (“[The] complete disregard of Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)’s requirements 

warrants denial of the [p]laintiff's motion[.]”); Audalus v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 566 F. Supp. 

3d 1318, 1320 n.1 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (“[The] [p]laintiffs’ inadequate good-faith certification 

is an independent basis for denying this [a]mended [m]otion.”).

Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) serves an important function. The purpose of the rule is to 

ensure judicial economy, prevent courts from wasting time evaluating issues the parties 

might be in agreement on, inform the Court as to whether it need wait for a response 

from the opposing party before deciding the motion, and, importantly, force the parties 

to engage in the meaningful exchange of information and viewpoints. See, e.g., Aguilar v. 

United Floor Crew, Inc., No. 14-CIV-61605, 2014 WL 6751663, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2014) 

(Bloom, J.); see also Osio v. Moros, No. 21-20706-CIV, 2023 WL 4531264, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 

13, 2023) (“The conferral requirement of Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) is meant to preserve the 

Court’s and the parties’ limited resources by ensuring that a prospective movant resolves 

a potential issue without engaging in unnecessary motion practice.”).

Because Plaintiff’s motion fails to include a Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) certification, the 

Case 1:22-cv-23745-RNS Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2023 Page 4 of 5
5 

Undersigned strikes it.

II. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Undersigned strikes Plaintiff [sic] Motion to 

Disqualify Attorneys Robert P. Elson and David S. Willig [ECF No. 55]. Any re-filed 

motion must include a proper Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) conferral certification.

The Undersigned further notes that Plaintiff’s motion refers to an “Exhibit ‘1’” 

[ECF No. 55, p. 3], which was not included in his filing. In the future, Plaintiff should 

ensure that referenced exhibits are included in his filings. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, on August 23, 2023. 

 

Copies furnished to:

The Honorable Robert N. Scola, Jr.

All Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-23745-RNS Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2023 Page 5 of 5