United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

Liora Samandarova, Plaintiff,

v. 

Hookah Exotix LLC, and others, 

Defendants.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Civil Action No. 22-22787-Civ-Scola 

Order Imposing Sanctions for Noncompliance with Pretrial Procedures 

This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s third notice of Defendant 

Alexandre Arkhipov’s noncompliance with the Court’s pretrial procedures. (ECF 

No. 22.) Defendant Arkhipov has failed to comply with three separate court orders 

by failing to timely respond to the Plaintiff’s statement of claim, which the Court 

(most recently) required Defendant Arkhipov to complete no later than January 

13, 2023. (Order Requiring Discovery and Scheduling Conference, ECF No. 4; 

Order Directing Compliance with Pretrial Procedures, ECF No. 18; Second Order 

Directing Compliance with Pretrial Procedures, ECF No. 20.) Because the Court 

finds that sanctions are appropriate, and no other sanctions will suffice to ensure 

compliance with its orders, the Court strikes Defendant Arkhipov’s answer and 

affirmative defenses (ECF No. 10) and directs the Plaintiff to seek entry of a 

Clerk’s default against the Defendant. 

1. Background 

Plaintiff Liora Samandarova filed her complaint in this matter on 

September 1, 2022, asserting, among other claims, violations of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA,” 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) As is the 

Court’s standard practice in FLSA cases, the Court entered its order requiring a 

discovery and scheduling conference and the filing of a statement of claim of 

unpaid wages by the Plaintiff, as well as a response to that claim by any 

appearing Defendants. (Order Requiring Disc. and Sched. Conf., ECF No. 4.) The 

order provided the Plaintiff twenty-one days to file her statement of claim, “setting 

forth the amount of alleged unpaid wages, the calculation of such wages, and the 

nature of the wages.” (ECF No. 4.) The Plaintiff filed the required statement of 

claim on September 15, 2022. (ECF No. 6.) After Defendant Arkhipov was served 

with and responded to the complaint, the Plaintiff filed a notice confirming that 

she had provided a copy of her statement of claim with the Defendant on 

November 3, 2022. (ECF No. 11.) Pursuant to the Court’s Order Requiring 

Discovery and Scheduling Conference, Defendant Arkhipov was therefore required 

to file his response to the statement of claim within fourteen days of receiving the 

statement of claim, which would have been November 17, 2022. Defendant 

Case 1:22-cv-22787-RNS Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 1 of 4
Arkhipov did not file is response to the statement of claim, request an extension 

to do so, or otherwise communicate with the Court or the Plaintiff’s counsel. (Pl.’s 

Not. of Noncompliance, ECF No. 17.)

Aware of Defendant Arkhipov’s pro se status, the Court entered an order 

directing Defendant Arkhipov to complete the required response by December 19, 

2022. (Order Directing Compliance with Pretrial Procedures, ECF No. 18.) In that 

order, the Court explained to Defendant Arkhipov what steps he needed to take to 

comply with the requirement to respond. The Defendant, however, again failed to 

respond or to communicate with the Court or counsel in any way. (Pl.’s Second 

Not. of Noncompliance, ECF No. 19.) 

Out of an abundance of caution, and again seeking to extend Defendant 

Arkhipov every opportunity to correct his failures to comply based on his pro se 

status, the Court again entered an order directing the Defendant to respond, 

detailing how he could respond, and extending the deadline to respond to the 

Plaintiff’s statement of claim. (Second Order Directing Compliance with Pretrial 

Procedure, ECF No. 20.) The Court reset the response deadline to January 13, 

2023. The Court additionally warned Defendant Arkhipov that, should he again 

fail to comply, “the Court will enter sanctions against him.” (Id. (emphasis in 

original).) Finally, the Court directed the Clerk to mail a copy of this order to 

Defendant Arkhipov to ensure that he was fully aware of the possibility of 

impending sanctions. (Id.) Unfortunately, Defendant Arkhipov yet again failed to 

comply with the modified deadline of January 13, 2023. (Pl.’s Third Not. of 

Noncompliance, ECF No. 22.) And neither the Court nor the Plaintiff’s counsel 

has had any communication from Defendant Arkhipov as of the date of this order. 

(Id.) 

2. Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 16(f), permits courts to enter sanctions 

for violations of scheduling or other pretrial orders: “On motion or on its own, the 

court may issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A) 

(ii)-(vii), if a party or its attorney ... (C) fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial 

order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. R. 16(f)(1). Under Rule 16(f), “district courts have discretion 

to decide if there is a pattern of delay or a deliberate refusal to comply with court 

orders or directions that justifies a sanction.” United States v. Samaniego, 345 

F.3d 1280, 1284 (11th Cir. 2003). Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii) authorizes courts to 

impose the following sanctions, although courts are not restricted to only these 

options under Rule 16(f): 

(1) the court may refuse to permit the violating party to raise certain 

defenses, or it may prohibit that party from opposing certain claims or 

defenses of the party obtaining the sanctions order; (2) the court may strike 

Case 1:22-cv-22787-RNS Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 2 of 4
any pleadings or any parts of the pleadings of the violating party, stay the 

proceedings, or even dismiss the action or enter a judgment of default 

against the violating party; and (3) the court may consider the violation a 

contempt of court.

Hicks v. Client Servs., Inc., No. 07-61822-CIV, 2009 WL 10667497, at *2 (S.D. Fla. 

Feb. 11, 2009) (Rosenbaum, Mag. J.). Of these potential sanctions, “the severe 

sanction of a dismissal or default judgment is appropriate only as a last resort, 

when less drastic sanctions would not ensure compliance with the court’s 

orders.” Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1542 (11th Cir. 1993). 

3. Analysis

The Court finds, based on Defendant Arkhipov’s repeated failures to 

respond to multiple court orders that provided him explicit instructions on how to 

respond to the Plaintiff’s statement of claim, that no sanction other than striking 

Defendant Arkhipov’s answer and entering default judgment against him would 

ensure compliance with its orders. See Malautea, 987 F.2d at 1542; see also 

Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985) (observing that the 

district court “would also have been justified in dismissing this action under Rule 

16(f) . . . to punish counsel for his disregard of the court’s orders to submit a 

preliminary statement” after affirming sanction of dismissal). While this sanction 

may seem severe, the Court has afforded Defendant Arkhipov multiple 

unrequested extensions of time to complete the required response to the Plaintiff’s 

statement of claim. (ECF Nos. 18, 20.) The Court has reiterated its instructions 

regarding the required response in its orders directing compliance. (ECF Nos. 18, 

20.) And the Court has clearly stated the potential consequences for failing to 

adhere to those orders—including, in its most recent order, stating affirmatively 

that “the Court will enter sanctions” for another failure to respond. (ECF No. 20 

(emphasis in original).) Finally, the Court directed the Clerk to mail a copy of the 

final order to Defendant Arkhipov, to ensure he received it, due to his pro se 

status. (ECF Nos. 18, 20.) Despite all of these measures, Defendant Arkhipov has 

repeatedly failed to communicate with the Court, or the Plaintiff’s counsel, at all. 

(ECF No. 22.) 

4. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Court strikes Defendant Arkhipov’s 

answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint. (ECF No. 10.) The Court will 

separately enter an order providing the Plaintiff with instructions on how to 

proceed to obtain a Clerk’s default and, ultimately, default judgment against 

Defendant Arkhipov now that his answer has been struck. Further, the Court 

Case 1:22-cv-22787-RNS Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 3 of 4
directs the Clerk to mail a copy of this order to Defendant Arkhipov, at the 

address identified below

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on January 19, 2023.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Copy via U.S. mail to:

Alexandre Arkhipov 

8028 NW 11th Ave. 

Miami, FL 33150

Case 1:22-cv-22787-RNS Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 4 of 4