SLATKIN & REYNOLDS, P.A.

One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 609, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 ● Telephone 954.745.5880

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re:

LOUIS TINO FISHER,

 Debtor.

CASE NO. 19-19710-SMG

Chapter 7

NOTICE OF FILING OF CREDITOR THEODORE ROBERTS’ MOTION FOR IMPOSITION OF 

SANCTIONS AGAINST DEBTOR PURSUANT TO RULE 9011 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF 

BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE

Creditor Theodore Roberts, by and through undersigned counsel, files Creditor 

Theodore Roberts’ Motion for Imposition of Sanctions Against Debtor Pursuant to Rule 9011 of 

the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Motion”), served on Debtor on November 4, 

2019. And with Debtor, having failed to take appropriate corrective action within the safe-harbor 

period provided by Rule 9011, Roberts files the attached Motion in accordance with the Rule.

Dated this 26th day of November 2019. SLATKIN & REYNOLDS, P.A.

Attorneys for Theodore Roberts

One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 609

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Telephone 954.745.5880

Facsimile 954.745.5890

jslatkin@slatkinreynolds.com

By: /s/ Jason E. Slatkin___________

 Jason E. Slatkin, Esq.

 Fla. Bar No: 040370

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished via CM/ECF to 

Christian J. Olson, Esq., attorney for Debtor, ecf@nowackolson.com, and U. S. Mail, first class, 

postage prepaid, to Lois Tino Fisher, 5440 NW 12th Court, Lauderhill, FL 33313 and American 

Express, Po Box 297871, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33329 26

th day of November 2019.

/s/ Jason E. Slatkin___

 Jason E. Slatkin, Esq.

Case 19-19710-SMG Doc 40 Filed 11/26/19 Page 1 of 4
1

SLATKIN & REYNOLDS, P.A.

One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 609, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 ● Telephone 954.745.5880

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re:

LOUIS TINO FISHER,

 Debtor.

CASE NO. 19-19710-RBR

Chapter 7

CREDITOR THEODORE ROBERTS’ MOTION FOR IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS AGAINST 

DEBTOR PURSUANT TO RULE 9011 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY 

PROCEDURE

Creditor, Theodore Roberts (“Roberts”), by and through undersigned counsel, files 

Creditor Theodore Roberts’ Motion for Imposition of Sanctions Against Debtor Pursuant to Rule 

9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Motion for Sanctions”), and as 

grounds therefore, Roberts states as follows:

1. On October 25, 2019, the Court granted Roberts’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss 

Case, [ECF 24], finding that the bankruptcy case was filed in bad faith in that it was a two party 

dispute and because Debtor was seeking to collaterally attack a final state court judgment for 

specific performance in violation of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, citing Target Media Partners 

v. Specialty Mktg. Corp., 881 F.3d 1279, 1285–86 (11th Cir. 2018) as authority for the Court’s 

decision. Order Dismissing Case. [ECF 35].

2. Debtor, acting pro se, as a further attempt to unnecessarily hinder and delay 

Roberts’ enforcement of the state court final judgment, filed his Motion for Rehearing and 

Clarification on November 1, 2019, (the “Debtor’s Motion”), [ECF 38], seeking reconsideration of 

the Order Dismissing Case. 

3. Debtor’s Motion asserts three completely frivolous arguments in support thereof. 

First, Debtor contends that the automatic stay precludes Roberts from challenging Debtor’s 

seeking bankruptcy protection. Debtor’s Motion ¶ 1 at 1. This is preposterous. Section 707 of 

Case 19-19710-SMG Doc 40 Filed 11/26/19 Page 2 of 4
2

SLATKIN & REYNOLDS, P.A.

One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 609, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 ● Telephone 954.745.5880

the Bankruptcy Code, which is the statutory basis for Roberts’ request for dismissal, specifically 

allows creditors to seek dismissal of a Chapter 7 case for cause, including bad faith.

4. Debtor’s second argument is that the dispute between Debtor and Roberts is not 

a two-party dispute because there was an additional defendant named in the state court action 

for specific performance. Debtor’s Motion ¶ 2 at 2. This, too, is absurd. The third party was not a 

debtor in bankruptcy. Rather, the only two active participants in Debtor’s bankruptcy case were

Debtor and Roberts. Moreover, despite amending his bankruptcy schedules a number of times, 

Debtor listed only Roberts and American Express as a creditor, with American Express being 

owed $754. This renders this case a text book two party dispute that bankruptcy courts routinely 

cite as grounds to dismiss a bankruptcy case. 

5. Debtor’s third argument is in actuality related to the second argument regarding 

the two-party dispute nature of the case. Debtor contends that because the state court judgment 

provides for a setoff for costs associated with seeking specific performance, that dismissal was 

improper. Debtor’s Motion ¶ 3 at 3. But this overlooks the fact that the bankruptcy case was an 

impermissible bad faith filing in an attempt to resolve what is a two-party dispute. The fact that 

the state court final judgment provided for a set-off does not change this fact.

6. Accordingly, Debtor’s Motion is utterly frivolous and as such, Roberts’ requests 

that sanctions be imposed pursuant to Rule 9011, Fed.R.Bankr.P. (2019), which provides in 

relevant part that:

[b]y presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a 

petition, pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is 

certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after 

an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,—

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause 

unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing 

law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing 

law or the establishment of new law;

Case 19-19710-SMG Doc 40 Filed 11/26/19 Page 3 of 4
3

SLATKIN & REYNOLDS, P.A.

One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 609, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 ● Telephone 954.745.5880

(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if 

specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable 

opportunity for further investigation or discovery...

Rule 9011(b).

7. If the court finds that subsection (b) was violated, it may impose sanctions, 

including monetary sanctions, against the offending party. Rule 9011(c)(2).

8. Roberts asserts that imposing monetary sanctions against Debtor for filing and 

failing to withdraw Debtor’s Motion is called for in this case.

WHEREFORE, Roberts, by and through undersigned counsel, requests that this 

Honorable Court grant this Motion for Sanctions by awarding Roberts his attorneys’ fees and 

costs incurred in connection with Debtor’s Motion and grant Roberts any further relief this 

Honorable Court deems just and proper.

Dated this 4

th day of November, 2019. SLATKIN & REYNOLDS, P.A.

Attorneys for Theodore Roberts

One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 700

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Telephone 954.745.5880

Facsimile 954.745.5890

jslatkin@slatkinreynolds.com

By: /s/ Jason E. Slatkin___________

 Jason E. Slatkin, Esq.

 Fla. Bar No: 040370

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing has been served on Louis Tino Fisher, 

at 5440 NW 12th Court, Lauderhill, FL 33313, on this 4th day of November, 2019, under cover of 

letter providing Debtor with the 21-day safe harbor provision within which to withdraw Debtor’s 

Motion, as required by Rule 9011(c)(1)(A).

/s/ Jason E. Slatkin___

 Jason E. Slatkin, Esq.

Case 19-19710-SMG Doc 40 Filed 11/26/19 Page 4 of 4