Opinion ID: 47351
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Florida District Court’s June 17, 2005, Order

Text: On June 17, 2005, four days after receiving the affidavit, the district court, acting sua sponte, entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice. The district court found, based on the Gismondi affidavit, that the provision in the Agreement requiring that the engines reach 120 pounds of compression was an impossible task 3 On April 25, 2005, the Defendants’ attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The district court granted this motion, and gave the Defendants twenty days to procure new counsel. The Defendants never hired a new attorney in the district court or for this appeal. 7 and the Agreement had been fully performed. Upon receipt of the dismissal, Tonnesen promptly filed two motions. On June 30, 2005, Tonneson filed a motion to strike the affidavit, contending that (1) the affidavit was filed more than 30 days after the district court’s order and thus was untimely and should not have been accepted; and (2) the Defendants failed to serve a copy of the affidavit as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5, and thus the affidavit was not properly before the court and should be stricken. Tonnesen further asserted that he had not received the affidavit nor even been aware of its existence until the dismissal order. Also on June 30, 2005, Tonnesen filed a motion to vacate the judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the district court erroneously had (1) failed to give the required notice that Tonnesen’s claims were set for dismissal; (2) thrown out causes of action that were unrelated to whether the Agreement had been breached; and (3) based its decision on an ex parte communication from the Defendants that was not properly before the district court. On July 1, 2005, the district court summarily denied both motions. Tonnesen timely appealed.