The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Not What Judges Want to See from Litigants
From today's sanctions order in Copycat Legal PLLC v. Peralo, by Judge David Leibowitz (S.D. Fla.), entered on the court's own initiative (the defendant is described in the Complaint as "a digital content creator who primarily focuses on producing videos in short form for his YouTube, TikTok, SnapChat, and Instagram viewers" and who claims to have "over 2 million followers across social media, 2.5 billion views and … over 4 billion impressions in polls/quizzes"):
Pro se Defendant Charles A. Peralo ("Defendant") has repeatedly failed to obey the Court's orders. Accordingly, the Court will impose a monetary sanction on him.
Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a court may, sua sponte, "issue any just orders, including those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)–(vii), if a party or its attorney … fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order." Sanctions under Rule 16 are "designed to punish lawyers and parties for conduct which unreasonably delays or otherwise interferes with the expeditious management of trial preparation." …
Defendant has repeatedly and brazenly ignored this Court's orders. On June 11, 2026, the Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, noting it bore indicia of AI-generated material, and ordered Defendant to file an answer to Plaintiffs' first amended complaint no later than June 25. Defendant blew through that deadline.
On July 2, Plaintiffs informed the Court that Defendant refused to participate in drafting a joint scheduling report per the Court's June 12 Order, "[d]espite at least thirteen (13) e-mail follow-ups." Plaintiffs included screenshots of Defendant's responses to those emails, where Defendant said (among other things), "[y]ou are a fat [f**cking] loser," "you are my dancing monkey," and "you're a [f**cking] moron." [All expurgations are from the court opinion itself. -EV]
{In their Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs represented that Defendant sent them the following email: "Sent you and the court the motion to dismiss your BS case and beat you with ChatGPT. When I send a bag of dog [s**t] to your office next week, should it be made out to Scamming Dan and Friends or Scamming Dan and Company?"}
The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a joint scheduling report by July 10 and sua sponte granted Defendant an extension of his deadline to respond to the complaint until July 16. On July 10—the date the joint scheduling report was due—Plaintiffs informed the Court that Defendant failed to provide input and stated he was "in Las Vegas for a conference." Finally, on July 13, the Court ordered Defendant to show cause in writing why he should not be sanctioned for failure to meaningfully participate in this lawsuit no later than July 24 and warned him that failure to comply would result in sanctions without further notice. Defendant blew through this deadline too, and still has yet to respond to the complaint.
The Court harbors no doubt that Defendant's conduct amounts to bad faith. Not only have Plaintiffs served a copy of every relevant order on Defendant, on July 20, 2026, in response to a proposed order that Plaintiffs emailed to the Court, Defendant wrote (copying the Court):
I'll look over this BS when I have less important things to do. Meaning well… Anything.
But just a quick note. Save yourself some dignity and remove the part of me calling that idiot a [c**t].
You can play that recording over. She left the call and when I thought she was gone I went "What a [c**t]". I didn't directly call her that and for your own good, the judge/jury would see you guys as liars over it.
This conduct (ignoring court orders and insulting counsel) is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant shall pay one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) into the Court's sanction fund no later than August 14, 2026, and shall file a notice certifying he has done so. The Court further warns Defendant that engaging in any similar conduct going forward will result in more severe sanctions….
For more on the underlying dispute (a libel case stemming from a copyright infringement claim), see the Complaint and the Motion to Dismiss.
Facts Only
* Defendant Charles A. Peralo is a pro se litigant.
* The sanctions order originated from a motion in Copycat Legal PLLC v. Peralo.
* Rule 16(f) allows courts to issue just orders for failure to obey pretrial orders.
* Defendant failed to file an answer by the June 25 deadline following a denial of his Motion to Dismiss.
* Defendant refused to participate in drafting a joint scheduling report, despite follow-ups by Plaintiffs.
* Plaintiffs included quotes from Defendant in emails expressing derogatory language toward them.
* The Court granted an extension for the response deadline.
* Defendant failed to provide input for the joint scheduling report by the July 10 deadline.
* The Court ordered Defendant to show cause regarding sanctions by July 24.
* The Court ordered Defendant to pay a $1,000.00 sanction into the fund by August 14, 2026.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative demonstrates a pattern where procedural non-compliance is explicitly linked to severe judicial sanction, creating a feedback loop that emphasizes accountability for professional conduct in litigation. The interaction between the defendant's behavior—including reportedly hostile communication with opposing counsel and outright refusal to cooperate—and the court’s response highlights a tension between the formal rules of procedure and the actual management of case preparation. The pattern observed suggests an attempt by the court to enforce procedural discipline when self-regulation fails, potentially signaling that specific behaviors in litigation are viewed as impediments to the process itself. The inclusion of offensive communications cited by plaintiffs introduces an element where adversarial conduct is not just a procedural failing but also a consideration for sanctions. This forces an examination of whether judicial sanctions are serving merely as punitive measures or if they are effectively reinforcing standards of participatory behavior within the legal system.
What role does the language used in court-ordered sanctions play in shaping future litigation behaviors? How does the reliance on Rule 16(f) as a tool for behavior modification impact the perceived balance between judicial authority and litigant autonomy? Does framing procedural non-compliance as "bad faith" reinforce a particular view of who holds the primary responsibility for case management?
Sentinel — Human
This text reads like an excerpt from detailed legal reporting that integrates direct, volatile evidence from court filings, suggesting a foundation in primary legal documentation rather than pure synthetic generation.