IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

Mary E. Allen, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

School Board for Santa Rosa County, 

Florida, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. :

3:10-CV-00142-MCR-MD

Judge M. CASEY RODGERS

NOTICE OF POTENTIALLY IMPROPER OR UNETHICAL CONDUCT

Plaintiffs regrettably are compelled to bring to the Court’s attention a troubling 

development in this litigation that has come to their attention. On August 20, 2010, the Court 

invited the Doe litigants and the Principal of Pace High School (the “Principal”) to participate in 

this action if they wished to do so, set a deadline for them to announce their decision, and stayed 

the action in the meantime. (Dkt. 45). The Principal was served with a Summons on August 25, 

2010. (Dkt. 54). On September 9, 2010 the Principal purportedly accepted the Court’s invitation, 

purportedly joined this action as a defendant and purportedly filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 

56). The Principal purportedly has been vigorously litigating against Plaintiffs, most recently 

filing a Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (dkt. 79) that 

asserts new and different defenses beyond those asserted by the School Board and 

Superintendent Defendants.
2

It appears, however, that the Principal has never authorized any of these actions to be 

taken on behalf of his office. (Declaration of Bridget H. Head1

These facts suggest that the two existing Defendants in this suit may have considered the 

Court’s invitation to the Principal as merely an opportunity for them to have a third bite of the 

litigation apple, and are using the office of Principal to suit their purposes without the 

knowledge, much less authorization, of the duly appointed occupant of that office. This 

prejudices Plaintiffs, by requiring them to respond to a third set of arguments and motions in this 

litigation controlled and advanced entirely by two existing parties.

, attached hereto as Exhibit A; 

Declaration of Martha Gough, attached hereto as Exhibit B). He was shocked to learn this week 

that his office is involved in this litigation. (Head Decl. at ¶ 5; Gough Decl. at ¶ 5(a)). He did not 

authorize the filing of a Motion to Dismiss. (Head Decl. at ¶ 6; Gough Decl. at ¶ 5(b)). He did 

not authorize the filing of a Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction. (Head Decl. at ¶ 7; Gough Decl. at ¶ 5(b)). He had not even seen any of those 

documents before they were filed. (Head Decl. at ¶¶ 6-7; Gough Decl. at ¶ 5(c)). The Principal is 

apparently upset and angry that others are litigating on his behalf and in the name of his office 

without informing him or seeking his authorization. (Gough Dec. at ¶ 5(d)).

2

 

1 Mrs. Head is a secretary in the Office of Principal (Head Decl. at ¶ 3). The undersigned communicated 

with Mrs. Head only after ensuring that she is not “a constituent of [the Office of Principal] who 

supervises, directs, or regularly consults with the organization's lawyer concerning [this lawsuit] or has 

authority to obligate [the Office of Principal] with respect to [this lawsuit] or whose act or omission in 

connection with [this lawsuit] may be imputed to [the Office of Principal] for purposes of civil or criminal 

liability.” Comments, Rule 4-4.2, Fla. R. of Prof. Conduct.

2 There may also be significant ethical considerations at issue. Rule 4-1.4(a), Fla. R. of Prof. Conduct, 

provides that “A lawyer shall promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to 

which the client's informed consent, as defined in terminology, is required.” Moreover, Rule 4-1.4(b), Fla. 

R. of Prof. Conduct, provides that “A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to 

permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.” Whether or not a client wishes 

to participate in a lawsuit, and authorizes that participation, would certainly seem to be decisions or 

circumstances which require informed consent.
3

Plaintiffs request that the Court investigate the allegations that have come to Plaintiffs’ 

attention, and, if it determines that the pleadings purportedly filed by the Principal were not 

authorized by him prior to filing, strike those pleadings, find that the Principal has not timely 

accepted the Court’s invitation to participate in this lawsuit and bar further participation.

Respectfully submitted,

David M. Corry

 Florida Bar No. 861308

LIBERTY COUNSEL

PO Box 11108

Lynchburg, VA 24506-1108

434-592-7000 Telephone

434-592-7700 Facsimile

court@lc.org

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

/s/ Horatio G. Mihet___________________

Mathew D. Staver

 Florida Bar No.

Anita L. Staver

 Florida Bar No.

Horatio G. Mihet

 Florida Bar No.

LIBERTY COUNSEL

PO Box 540774

Orlando, FL 32854-0774

800-671-1776 Telephone

407-875-0770 Facsimile

court@lc.org

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed 

electronically with the Court this 20th day of October, 2010. Service will be effectuated upon all 

parties of record by the Court’s electronic notification system.

/s/ Horatio G. Mihet_____________________

Horatio G. Mihet, Esq.

One of the attorneys for Plaintiffs