Case 6:23-cv-01293-RBD-EJK Document 59 Filed 12/18/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 718
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
KATIE ROMANO,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 6:23-cv-1293-RBD-EJK
TD BANK N.A.; TARGET
ENTERPRISE, INC.; and RAS
LAVAR LLC,
Defendants.
____________________________________
ORDER
Before the Court are the parties’ responses to the Court’s Order to Show
Cause (Doc. 39 (“OSC”)). This Order memorializes the Court’s oral
pronouncements during the recent Show Cause Hearing. (Doc. 57.)
BACKGROUND
In this now-closed Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case (see Doc. 58), the
parties were required to jointly file a Case Management Report (“CMR”). See Local
Rule 3.02(a)(2); (see also Doc. 6, p. 2.) But defense counsel unilaterally filed a CMR
without the participation of Plaintiff’s counsel, Paul Wersant. (See Doc. 37.) So on
November 13, 2023, the Court ordered Wersant to show cause why he should not
be sanctioned for not helping to prepare a joint CMR. (Doc. 39.) The Court also
struck the unilateral CMR and ordered that a joint CMR be filed within two days.
Case 6:23-cv-01293-RBD-EJK Document 59 Filed 12/18/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 719
(Id.)
On November 15, the parties filed a joint CMR. (Doc. 42.) But that same
day—when his OSC response was due—Wersant filed a last-minute, “time-
sensitive” motion to extend his response time by two days. (Doc. 41.) In his motion,
he claimed that he needed more time to gather evidence of opposing counsel’s
own wrongdoings. (Id. ¶ 6.) The Court reluctantly granted the extension but
explicitly warned Wersant not to blame opposing counsel for his own actions in
his response. (Doc. 44.) The new deadline, November 17, came and went, but
Wersant did not respond to the OSC. So the next Monday, November 20, the Court
sua sponte gave Wersant one more day to respond. (Doc. 44.)
The next day, Wersant filed a combative and defensive response to the OSC
and, despite the Court’s clear instructions, blamed opposing counsel. (Doc. 47; see
Doc. 44.) So the Court scheduled a Show Cause Hearing for December 7, requiring
all attorneys in the case to appear in person and show cause why they should not
be sanctioned. (Doc. 48.)
The day before the hearing, Wersant filed another “time-sensitive” motion
to continue the hearing because of conflicts in Georgia state court. (Doc. 52.)
Wersant represented that opposing counsel “consent[s] to or do[es] not oppose the
continuance” (id. at 4), but opposing counsel refuted this, citing evidence that
Wersant knew about this conflict weeks before (Doc. 53; see Doc. 53-1, pp. 4–5).
2
Case 6:23-cv-01293-RBD-EJK Document 59 Filed 12/18/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 720
And the day of the Show Cause Hearing, Wersant filed yet another “time-
sensitive” motion, this time to appear telephonically. (Doc. 54.) The Court denied
both “time-sensitive” motions. (Doc. 56.) Finally, Wersant failed to appear for the
Show Cause Hearing. (See Doc. 57.)
STANDARDS
A federal court’s inherent powers include “the ability to fashion an
appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Chambers v.
NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44–45 (1991). “[I]n order for a court to impose a sanction
pursuant to its inherent authority, it must make a finding that the sanctioned party
acted with subjective bad faith.” Hernandez v. Acosta Tractors Inc., 898 F.3d 1301,
1306 (11th Cir. 2018). In addition to inherent powers sanctions, courts may, after a
hearing and for good cause, disbar, suspend, reprimand, or otherwise discipline a
member of the Middle District bar or a lawyer appearing by special admission.
Local Rule 2.04(a).
ANALYSIS
As a member of the Florida Bar and an officer of the Court, Wersant’s
conduct is unacceptable. This is not the first time he has frivolously filed a “time-
sensitive” motion to dig himself out of overcommitments or scheduling conflicts.
See, e.g., IOU Central, Inc. v. Fines Enters. Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1893 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 9,
2021) (Wersant was admonished by U.S. Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price
3
Case 6:23-cv-01293-RBD-EJK Document 59 Filed 12/18/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 721
for filing a “time-sensitive” motion because of circumstances of his own making).
And far from being a true emergency, Wersant knew about this conflict two weeks
before the hearing, yet only filed his motion to continue the day before. (Compare
Doc. 52, pp. 1–2, with Doc. 53-1, pp. 4–5.) Meanwhile, defense counsel spent its
resources and time traveling to Orlando for the hearing, only to find out mid-travel
that Wersant likely would not show. (See Doc. 53.) And to top it all off, Wersant
filed a motion to appear telephonically mere hours before the hearing. (See
Doc. 54.) What did he expect would happen?
The Court finds that Wersant’s failure to appear for the Show Cause
Hearing, failure to timely respond to the Court’s OSC even after multiple
extensions, failure to accurately depict opposing counsel’s position in the
Rule 3.01(g) certification and apparent repeated failure to fully cooperate under
Rule 3.01(g), and combative and defensive response to this Court’s OSC—itself
violative of this Court’s orders—constituted bad faith conduct. So Wersant must
compensate defense counsel for their travels and time spent away from the office
to attend the hearing he ignored. 1 The case will also be referred to the Grievance
Committee for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, to further evaluate
Wersant’s misconduct. See Local Rule 2.04(c)(4)(A).
1 The Court specifically found at the hearing that defense counsel had committed no
misconduct.
4
Case 6:23-cv-01293-RBD-EJK Document 59 Filed 12/18/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 722
Wersant must learn that the Court will not accommodate his self-made
“emergencies.” His chutzpah disrespects the Court and will not be tolerated.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The Order to Show Cause (Doc. 39) is DISCHARGED.
2. Attorney Paul Gerard Wersant, Esq. is SANCTIONED in that he
must reimburse defense counsel for the costs of their travel and
reasonable attorney’s fees for their time away from the office for the
hearing:
a. At the hearing, the Court directed Attorneys Barbara
Fernandez, Esq. and Keith Robert Lorenze, Esq. to file a notice
regarding the itemization of travel costs and reasonable
compensation to be paid by Monday, December 18, 2023. The
Court will review the notice for approval.
b. Within fourteen (14) days of the Court’s approval of this notice,
Attorney Wersant is DIRECTED to remit payment to
Attorneys Fernandez and Lorenze.
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to post a copy of this Order on the Court’s
website and to provide copies to the Florida Bar.
4. This matter is REFERRED to the Grievance Committee for the Middle
District of Florida, Orlando Division, for a recommendation
5
Case 6:23-cv-01293-RBD-EJK Document 59 Filed 12/18/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 723
concerning further sanctions for the totality of Attorney Wersant’s
conduct.
5. The file is to remain closed.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on December 18,
2023.
6
