Weiner V Shree Kavya
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JENNIFER WEINER,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 2:25-cv-120-JES-KCD
SHREE KAVYA HOSPITALITY, LLC
d/b/a Days Inn by Wyndham
Fort Myers, SHREE KAVYA
HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC d/b/a
Days Inn by Wyndham, Fort
Myers, and WYNDHAM HOTELS
AND RESORTS, INC.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendants Shree Kavya
Hospitality and Shree Kavya Hospitality Group’s Motion for
Sanctions (Doc. #35) filed on July 1, 2025. Plaintiff filed a
Response and Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. #38) on the same
day. The motion was served on plaintiff and counsel on June 3,
2025, and counsel failed to withdraw the claims within the safe-
harbor period. (Doc. #35 at 2.)
Plaintiff initiated a Complaint (Doc. #1) against defendants
alleging sex trafficking in 2017 under the William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). Plaintiff was granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and service was executed in May
2025. (Docs. ## 12, 21, 24, 25.) Defendants Shree Kavya
Hospitality and Shree Kavya Hospitality Group (Shree Kavya
defendants) appeared and sought an extension of time to respond to
the Complaint through July 1, 2025. (Docs. ## 28, 29.) Defendant
Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Inc. (Wyndham Hotels) has not yet
appeared in the case.
On June 30, 2025, plaintiff filed a Motion to Leave to File
First Amended Complaint Against Defendants (Doc. #32) to add
factual details and specific causes of action as to defendant
Wyndham Hotels and filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without
Prejudice (Doc. #33) to dismiss the Shree Kavya defendants without
prejudice. The motion to amend was denied for procedural reasons.
(Doc. #39.)
On July 1, 2025, the Shree Kavya defendants filed the motion
for sanctions arguing that counsel knowingly advanced frivolous
claims contradicted by evidence establishing that Shree Kavya
Hospitality does not and never has owned or operated the property
at issue and events occurred more than five years before Shree
Kavya Hospitality Group owned the property.
Rule 11(b) states that:
By presenting to the court a pleading, written
motion, or other paper--whether by signing,
filing, submitting, or later advocating it--
an attorney or unrepresented party certifies
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,
cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly
increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal
contentions are warranted by existing law
or by a nonfrivolous argument for
extending, modifying, or reversing
existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary
support or, if specifically so
identified, will likely have evidentiary
support after a reasonable opportunity
for further investigation or discovery;
and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are
warranted on the evidence or, if
specifically so identified, are
reasonably based on belief or a lack of
information.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). The Rule 11 standard, as recently stated by
the Eleventh Circuit:
Rule 11 sanctions are warranted when a party
files a pleading or motion that “(1) has no
reasonable factual basis; (2) is based on a
legal theory that has no reasonable chance of
success and that cannot be advanced as a
reasonable argument to change existing law;
and (3) is filed in bad faith for an improper
purpose.” []
Rule 11 imposes an affirmative duty on an
attorney to conduct a reasonable inquiry into
both the facts and the law before filing a
pleading or motion. [] When deciding whether
to impose sanctions under Rule 11, a district
court must conduct a two-step inquiry,
determining “(1) whether the party's claims
are objectively frivolous; and (2) whether the
person who signed the pleadings should have
been aware that they were frivolous.” [] A
factual claim is frivolous when it has no
reasonable factual basis. [] A legal claim is
frivolous when it has no reasonable chance of
succeeding. [] When the attorney's evidence is
“merely weak,” but supports a claim under
existing law after a reasonable inquiry,
sanctions are unwarranted. Sanctions are
warranted, however, when the attorney exhibits
“a deliberate indifference to obvious facts.”
[]
If the attorney failed to make a reasonable
inquiry, then “the court must impose sanctions
despite the attorney's good faith belief that
the claims were sound.” [] The reasonableness
of the inquiry depends on the circumstances of
the case. []
In addition, an attorney's obligations with
respect to the contents of pleadings or
motions are not measured solely as of the time
when the pleading or motion is initially filed
with the court, but also at the time when the
attorney, having learned the claims lack
merit, reaffirms them to the court. [] “That
the contentions contained in the complaint
were not frivolous at the time it was filed
does not prevent the district court from
sanctioning [the attorney] for his continued
advocacy of them after it should have been
clear that those contentions were no longer
tenable.” []
Gulisano v. Burlington, Inc., 34 F.4th 935, 941–43 (11th Cir. 2022)
(internal citations omitted). “Under Rule 11’s ‘safe harbor’
provision, the party seeking sanctions must serve a copy of the
motion on the opposing party 21 days before filing a motion for
sanctions under Rule 11.” Dudar v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins.,
No. 23-12788, 2024 WL 3580079, at *1 (11th Cir. July 30, 2024)
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2)).
In response, plaintiff states that defense counsel refused to
provide “basic information regarding their clients’ relationships
or familial ties, despite Plaintiff’s repeated good-faith efforts
to obtain this information.” (Doc. #38 at ¶ 8.) Counsel further
states that a private investigator had to be retained to determine
the owners, which revealed on or about June 5, 2025, that at the
time of the alleged trafficking incident on the property a separate
entity was operating the business at that location.” (Id. at 9-
10.) On June 27, 2025, counsel tried to initiate another meet and
confer to voluntarily dismiss the parties but counsel for
defendants declined to stipulate to the dismissal. (Id. at 12.)
Counsel denies any bad faith or undue delay in seeking leave to
amend. (Id. at 19-20.)
The Court finds that the claims are not objectively frivolous.
Plaintiff’s counsel diligently sought to establish the factual
basis of the claims, acted promptly to dismiss defendants after an
investigation, and that sanctions are not appropriate.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Defendants Shree Kavya Hospitality and Shree Kavya
Hospitality Group’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #35) is
DENIED.
2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, without the Shree
Kavya defendants, within SEVEN (7) DAYS of this Opinion
and Order.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 23rd day
of July 2025,
□□ (2. _ /
AA) Pe,
JQH E. STEELE
5 IOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies:
Counsel of Record