Pitts v. Francis
United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93047 (2007)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Brittany Pitts (plaintiff) sued Joseph Francis and other entities controlled by Francis that operated under the name Girls Gone Wild (defendants). Pitts alleged that Girls Gone Wild had improperly used Pitts’s image in videos. As authorized by local rule, the district court ordered the parties to attend mediation. Francis, who was represented by counsel, arrived at the mediation four hours late, unapologetic, and barefoot. Francis placed his bare, dirty feet on the mediation table, and as Pitts’s counsel was beginning his presentation, Francis yelled, repeatedly, “Don’t expect to get a fucking dime—not one fucking dime!” Francis also shouted that he controlled the company’s money, would not settle the case, and was only at the mediation because the court was forcing him to be there. Believing that mediation would be futile, Pitts’s counsel began to leave. Although unprovoked, Francis threatened and charged at counsel in the manner of a physical assault. Francis’s attorney intervened to prevent a brawl. The trial court found Francis in contempt of a court order and imposed coercive incarceration as a sanction. Francis’s counsel understood that the sanction was for Francis’s failure to mediate in good faith. The transcript of the contempt hearing reflected the court’s rationale, namely, Francis’s utterly outrageous, violent conduct and the court’s basis for believing that monetary sanctions alone would not sufficiently motivate him to comply with the court’s order. The court expressly stated during the hearing that Francis was not required to settle the case during mediation but he was required to mediate in good faith. Subsequently, Francis filed a motion to disqualify or for recusal of the trial judge, Richard Smoak. Francis argued that Smoak was biased against him, as evidenced by Smoak’s requiring Francis to settle or mediate under threat of incarceration.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smoak, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.