Massetti v. Greenspring Capital Mgmt., LLC, No. 25-61601-CIV-SMITH (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Ralph J. Massetti, Jr. v. Greenspring Capital Management, LLC, et al.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2026
Majority
Patrick M. Hunt (J.) (unanimous Court)
RALPH J. MASSETTI, JR., Plaintiff, v. GREENSPRING CAPITAL..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 402483Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, S.D. Florida,FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION.RALPH J. MASSETTI, JR., Plaintiff,v.GREENSPRING CAPITALMANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants.Case No. 25-61601-CIV-SMITH/HUNT|Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026Attorneys and Law FirmsRalph John Massetti, Jr., 8390 Via de Ventura, Suite 110,Scottsdale, AZ 85258, PRO SERalph John Massetti Jr., Scottsdale, AZ, Pro Se.Adam Grant Schwartz, Eric Marc Levine, Jorge Luis Suarez,Atlas Solomon LLP, Stuart, FL, Joseph James Huss, JoshuaJay Shore, Krinzman Huss & Lubetsky, LLP, Ft. Lauderdale,FL, for Defendants Greenspring Capital Management, LLC,RMH 2023-5 Trust.Adam Grant Schwartz, Atlas Solomon LLP, Stuart, FL, forDefendant RMH 2023-1 LLC.Lauren Michelle Bluestein, Miami, FL, for DefendantSecretary of Housing and Urban Development.Jannie Armi Monteclaro Mandell, Plantation, FL, Pro Se.The Estate of June F. Mandell, Deceased, Plantation, FL, ProSe.REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONPATRICK M. HUNT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATEJUDGE*1 THIS CAUSE is before this Court on DefendantGreenspring Capital Management, LLC's Motion forSanctions (“Motion”). ECF No. 18. The Honorable RodneySmith, United States District Judge, referred this Motion tothe undersigned for an appropriate ruling. ECF No. 19; seealso 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); S.D. Fla. L.R., Mag. R. 1. Havingcarefully reviewed the Motion, the Response, ECF No. 22,the entire record, and applicable law, and being otherwisefully advised in the premises, the undersigned respectfullyRECOMMENDS the Motion be DENIED for the reasons setforth below.BACKGROUNDThis is a quiet title action concerning real property in BrowardCounty. See ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff Ralph John Massetti, Jr.,proceeding pro se, initially filed suit in state court againstvarious entities and individuals that claimed a right to theproperty.1 See id. In early August, a federal agency removedthis action to this Court. ECF No. 1. Defendant GreenspringCapital Management, LLC (“Greenspring”) moved to dismissthe action on multiple grounds. ECF No. 4. On August 25,2025, Greenspring filed the instant Motion for Sanctionsagainst Plaintiff. ECF No. 18. In the Motion, Greenspringrequests that Plaintiff be ordered to pay its reasonableattorney's fees for bringing unsupported claims in the SecondAmended Complaint. Id. Two days after the Motion was filed,Plaintiff voluntary dismissed. ECF No. 20. Shortly after thiscase was closed, Plaintiff also filed a response to the Motionfor Sanctions. ECF No. 22.DISCUSSIONGreenspring moves for sanctions under Fla. Stat. § 57.105(2019), which states, in relevant part,Upon ... motion of any party, the courtshall award a reasonable attorney's fee,including prejudgment interest, to bepaid to the prevailing party in equalamounts by the losing party and thelosing party's attorney on any claimor defense at any time during a civilproceeding or action in which thecourt finds that the losing party or thelosing party's attorney knew or shouldhave known that a claim or defensewhen initially presented to the courtor at any time before trial: (a) Wasnot supported by the material factsnecessary to establish the claim ordefense; or (b) Would not be supported
RALPH J. MASSETTI, JR., Plaintiff, v. GREENSPRING CAPITAL..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2by the application of then-existing lawto those material facts.*2 Fla. Stat. § 57.105(1). The purpose of this statute is “todeter meritless filings.” FS Invs. of Am., Inc. v. McCombsW. Ford, LLC, No. 8:23-CV-00709-WFJ-SPF, 2025 WL1568216, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 3, 2025) (quoting Cadavidv. Saporta, 344 So. 3d 478, 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)).“Attorney's fees awarded under § 57.105 are analogous tosanctions imposed under Rule 11.” Acosta v. Miami-DadeCnty., No. 16-23241-CIV-CANNON/OTAZO-REYES, 2021WL 6010460, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2021), report andrecommendation adopted, 2021 WL 5474143 (S.D. Fla. Nov.23, 2021). “Attorney's fees are awarded under section 57.105... where there is a total or absolute lack of justiciable issuesof either law or fact, this being tantamount to a finding thatthe action is frivolous or completely untenable.” Acosta, 2021WL 6010460, at *4 (quoting Vasquez v. Provincial S., Inc.,795 So. 2d 216, 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)).The Court notes here that Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, sohis pleadings are “held to a less stringent standard” andwill be “liberally construed.” Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157,1160 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Generally speaking,federal courts “are reluctant to impose sanctions on pro selitigants.” United States v. Morse, 532 F.3d 1130, 1133 (11thCir. 2008); see, e.g., Yeh Ho v. Sabocik, 775 F. App'x 551, 555(11th Cir. 2019) (“[G]iven [plaintiff's] pro se status, sanctionsare not warranted even if we agreed with the defendants thatthe appeal is frivolous.”).The Complaint essentially alleged that Plaintiff was thefee simple owner of real property and none of the namedDefendants had a legitimate claim to or lien on the property.See ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff's claims were supported by specificfactual allegations, including chronological details of a searchfor property title. See id. at 7–8. Even if Plaintiff's allegationsand legal theories ultimately did not hold water, they werenot “completely untenable.” Acosta, 2021 WL 6010460, at *4(citation omitted). Plaintiff's arguments “are not as patentlyfrivolous in the face of established law and ‘utterly devoid ofmerit’ as in the cases in which this court has sanctioned prose parties.” McCavey v. Gold, 625 F. App'x 968, 972 (11thCir. 2015) (quoting Bonfiglio v. Nugent, 986 F.2d 1391, 1393(11th Cir.1993)).Moreover, this is not a case where the pro se plaintiff hasa history of frivolous litigation or was warned by the Courtthat his claims were unviable. Cf. Bonfiglio, 986 F.2d at1394 (imposing sanctions against pro se appellant after he“refused to heed the district court's clear warning, and insteadstubbornly filed this appeal in which he repeats to this Courtthe utterly frivolous contentions he made in the districtcourt”). Nor does it appear that Plaintiff “acted in bad faith,vexatiously, wantonly or for oppressive reasons.” Martins v.Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 431 F. Supp. 3d 1355, 1364(S.D. Fla. 2019) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S.32, 45–46 (1991)).In support of its Motion, Greenspring argues that Plaintiffshould be sanctioned for citing to nonexistent legal authoritiesin his Second Amended Complaint.2 If Plaintiff were anattorney, that conduct may very well justify sanctions. See,e.g., DOC App, Inc. v. Leafwell, Inc., No. 2:25-CV-838-SPC-NPM, 2025 WL 3753997, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 29,2025) (upholding sanctions and referral to Florida Bar basedon attorney's “repeated, numerous misrepresentations to theCourt and refusal to take responsibility for them,” including“misrepresentations of case law”). And “pro se litigants arenot immune from such sanctions,” especially where litigantscontinually “neglect [their] duty of candor to this Court.”O'Brien v. Flick, No. 24-61529-CIV-DAMIAN, 2025 WL242924, at *6–7 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2025), aff'd, No. 25-10143,2025 WL 2731627 (11th Cir. Sept. 25, 2025).*3 Yet, giving Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, it appearsthat Plaintiff tried to correct the mistakes pointed out byGreenspring. First, Plaintiff did not include any fabricatedcitations in his Response to the Motion. Plaintiff appears tocite to legitimate, relevant cases. See generally ECF No. 22.Second, Plaintiff dismissed the action just two days after themotion for sanctions was filed. ECF No. 20. By voluntarilydismissing his own claims, Plaintiff brought a simple, speedyresolution to this action. Cf. Fuccillo v. Century Enters. Inc.,No. 8:18-CV-1236-T-36AEP, 2020 WL 1431714, at *3 (M.D.Fla. Jan. 15, 2020) (recommending award of fees whereplaintiffs proceeded to “drag on” with litigation even afterit became apparent that claims were frivolous), report andrecommendation adopted sub nom. Fuccillo v. Silver, 2020WL 897989 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2020). Sanctions are notwarranted against Plaintiff, a pro se litigant who dismissed hisclaims after less than three months of litigation.In sum, the Court sees no reason at this juncture to administerthe strong medicine of sanctions under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 orRule 11.3 The Motion should be denied.
RALPH J. MASSETTI, JR., Plaintiff, v. GREENSPRING CAPITAL..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3RECOMMENDATIONBased on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDSthat the Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 18, be DENIED.Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copyof this Report and Recommendation, any party may serveand file written objections to any of the above findings andrecommendations as provided by the Local Rules for thisdistrict. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). Theparties are hereby notified that a failure to timely objectwaives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court'sorder based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusionscontained in this Report and Recommendation. 11th Cir. R.3–1 (2018); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).DONE AND SUBMITTED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida this26th day of January 2026.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 402483Footnotes1Defendants include Greenspring Capital Management, LLC, not in its individual capacity but solely asAdministrator of RMH 2023-5 Trust; RMH 2023-5 Trust; RMH 2023-1 LLC; Secretary of Housing and UrbanDevelopment; Jannie Armi Monteclaro Mandell, individually and as personal representative of the Estate ofJune F. Mandell, deceased; the Estate of June F. Mandell, deceased; Unknown Heirs, Devisees, Grantees,Assignees, Lienors, Creditors, Trustees, and All Other Parties claiming by, through, under or against JuneF. Mandell, deceased; All Unknown Parties claiming any right, title, or interest in the subject property locatedat 940 Doveplum Court, Hollywood, Florida 33109, including any spouses, heirs, devisees; and any party inpossession of the property. ECF No. 1-1.2Greenspring's assertion appears to be true. The undersigned is unable to find some of the legal authoritiescited, leading to an inference that those authorities do not exist or, at best, are identified by incorrect citations.3Plaintiff argues that Greenspring did not comply with the “safe harbor” requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). ECF No. 22. Because it is undisputed that Plaintiff knew about the pending sanctions motion sinceGreenspring served Plaintiff on July 29, 2025, this argument is meritless.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access