Lennen et al v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc. et al

RESPONSE re Notice of filing supplemental authority

M.D. Fla.March 29, 2019

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ANTHONY LENNEN, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 6:16-cv-00855-Orl-CEM-TBS MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., et al., Defendants. MARRIOTT DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY The Marriott Defendants respectfully submit this brief response to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority (Dkt. No. 219). Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Martin v. Behr Dayton Thermal Products LLC, 896 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 2019 WL 1231762 (U.S. Mar. 18, 2019), “gained additional significance when … the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari” (Dkt. No 219 at 1), demonstrates their “misunderstanding … that the denial of certiorari … is an indication of the Court's view on the merits. It is not.” Powell v. Barrett, 541 F.3d 1298, 1313 n.5 (11th Cir. 2008). To the contrary, “[f]or at least [nine] decades the Supreme Court has instructed us, time and again, over and over, that the denial of certiorari does not in any way or to any extent reflect or imply any view on the merits.” Id. (citing cases).1 As for Plaintiffs’ reliance on the Martin case, we refer the Court to our prior brief (Dkt. No. 197 at 36-37 n.19), citing cases within the Eleventh Circuit that directly contradict the Sixth Circuit’s non-binding decision in Martin. 1 See, e.g., Huber v. N.J. Dept. of Env. Prot., 562 U.S. 1302, 1302 (2011) (“‘[D]enial of certiorari does not constitute an expression of any opinion on the merits.’”) (quoting Boumediene v. Bush, 549 U.S. 1328, 1329 (2007)); Wrotten v. New York, 560 U.S. 959, 960 (2010) (same). Case 6:16-cv-00855-CEM-TBS Document 220 Filed 03/29/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID 5438 2 March 29, 2019 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Dawn I. Giebler-Millner Dawn I. Giebler-Millner, Esq. Florida Bar No. 856576 GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 450 South Orange Avenue, Suite 650 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1000 Facsimile: (407) 841-1295 (gieblerd@gtlaw.com) - and- Philip R. Sellinger (admitted pro hac vice) (SellingerP@gtlaw.com) Roger B. Kaplan (admitted pro hac vic) (KaplanR@gtlaw.com) Ian S. Marx (admitted pro hac vice) (MarxI@gtlaw.com) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 500 Campus Drive, Suite 400 Florham Park, New Jersey 07932 Telephone: (973) 360-7900 Facsimile: (973) 301-8410 Attorneys for the Marriott Defendants Case 6:16-cv-00855-CEM-TBS Document 220 Filed 03/29/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID 5439 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 29th day of March 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. I FURTHER CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing is being served via transmission of a Notice of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on all counsel of record. /s/ Dawn I. Giebler-Millner, Esq. Dawn I. Giebler-Millner, Esq. Case 6:16-cv-00855-CEM-TBS Document 220 Filed 03/29/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID 5440