De Oliveira v. Tenet Healthcare
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-01683
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
De Oliveira v. Tenet Healthcare: Judge Stein struck noncompliant filings, stayed proceedings pending responses, and warned of possible sanctions for abusive filing practices.
Daniel De Oliveira, the defendants in the five consolidated cases, and the Clerk of Court. The order also affects the handling of De Oliveira’s pending and future filings.
What happened
In the consolidated cases collectively captioned De Oliveira v. Tenet Healthcare and related actions, Daniel De Oliveira filed more than 50 documents. Judge Broderick’s earlier order required him to file everything in one case, but he filed documents in two other cases instead.
The court directed the Clerk to strike those listed documents. De Oliveira may resubmit them in the designated case, but the court will not consider them or requests for relief in them unless he does so. Defendants do not have to respond to his pending motions unless the court later directs them to, and all further proceedings are paused until the defendants respond to the complaints.
Judge Gary Stein warned that continued abusive filing practices could lead to monetary penalties, loss of permission to file electronically, or dismissal of the lawsuits. The order did not decide the underlying claims or impose those sanctions.
The detailed version
- De Oliveira v. Tenet Healthcare · No. 1:25-cv-01683
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 30, 2025
Background
This order addressed five consolidated cases brought by Daniel De Oliveira against Tenet Healthcare, Pakis, Giotes, Burleson & Deaconson, P.C., Valley Baptist Realty Company, LLC, VHS Harlingen Hospital Company, L.L.C., JAMS., and other defendants. The opinion states that De Oliveira had made more than 50 filings over several weeks.
Judge Broderick’s March 17, 2025 Consolidation Order directed De Oliveira to make all filings only in Case No. 25-cv-1683, which was to include all five complaints. The order said De Oliveira repeatedly violated that direction by filing documents in Case No. 25-cv-1692 and Case No. 25-cv-1754 instead of filing them in Case No. 25-cv-1683.
Orders concerning the filings
The court directed the Clerk of Court to strike each filing identified in the order. De Oliveira may resubmit those filings under Case No. 25-cv-1683. The court stated that it would not consider the filings or act on requests for relief contained in them unless and until De Oliveira resubmitted them in compliance with the consolidation order. The court also directed De Oliveira to make all future filings consistently with that order and stated that noncompliant filings would be disregarded and stricken.
The court further advised defendants that they did not need to respond to De Oliveira’s pending motions until the court issued another order. If a defendant chose to respond before then, the response was to be made in a single filing.
Stay and warning
The court stayed all further proceedings in each case until the applicable defendant or defendants filed an answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to the applicable complaint. The court stated that it would issue further orders after those responses were filed.
The court warned that continued abusive litigation conduct could result in sanctions, including monetary sanctions, revocation of permission to file documents electronically, or dismissal of the lawsuits. The court did not impose those sanctions in this order.
Reason for the order and disposition
Judge Gary Stein stated that the volume and pace of the filings made it impracticable for defendants to respond adequately and for the court to address the filings promptly. The order also stated that many filings appeared frivolous, vexatious, or duplicative and sought relief that was procedurally unavailable at that stage, including multiple renewed summary-judgment motions. This was a procedural case-management order; it did not decide the merits of De Oliveira’s claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.