Massetti v. Greenspring Capital Management, LLC, et al.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION
Case No. 25-61601-CIV-SMITH/HUNT
RALPH J. MASSETTI, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GREENSPRING CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE is before this Court on Defendant Greenspring Capital Management,
LLC’s Motion for Sanctions (“Motion”). 	ECF No. 18. 	The Honorable Rodney Smith,
United States District Judge, referred this Motion to the undersigned for an appropriate
ruling. 	ECF No. 19; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); S.D. Fla. L.R., Mag. R. 1. 	Having
carefully reviewed the Motion, the Response, ECF No. 22, the entire record, and
applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the undersigned
respectfully RECOMMENDS the Motion be DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
BACKGROUND
This is a quiet title action concerning real property in Broward County. 	See ECF
No. 1-1. 	Plaintiff Ralph John Massetti, Jr., proceeding pro se, initially filed suit in state
court against various entities and individuals that claimed a right to the property.1 See id.
1 	Defendants include Greenspring Capital Management, LLC, not in its individual
capacity but solely as Administrator of RMH 2023-5 Trust; RMH 2023-5 Trust; RMH 2023-
1 LLC; Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Jannie Armi Monteclaro Mandell,
individually and as personal representative of the Estate of June F. Mandell, deceased;
Case 0:25-cv-61601-RS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 1 of 6

2
In early August, a federal agency removed this action to this Court. 	ECF No. 1.
Defendant Greenspring Capital Management, LLC (“Greenspring”) moved to dismiss the
action on multiple grounds. ECF No. 4. On August 25, 2025, Greenspring filed the instant
Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff. ECF No. 18. In the Motion, Greenspring requests
that Plaintiff be ordered to pay its reasonable attorney’s fees for bringing unsupported
claims in the Second Amended Complaint. 	Id. 	Two days after the Motion was filed,
Plaintiff voluntary dismissed. 	ECF No. 20. 	Shortly after this case was closed, Plaintiff
also filed a response to the Motion for Sanctions. ECF No. 22.
DISCUSSION
Greenspring moves for sanctions under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 (2019), which states,
in relevant part,
Upon . . . motion of any party, the court shall award a reasonable attorney’s
fee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the prevailing party in
equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney on any
claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which the
court finds that the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should
have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or
at any time before trial: (a) Was not supported by the material facts
necessary to establish the claim or defense; or (b) Would not be supported
by 	the 	application 	of 	then-existing 	law 	to 	those 	material 	facts.
Fla. Stat. § 57.105(1). The purpose of this statute is “to deter meritless filings.” FS Invs.
of Am., Inc. v. McCombs W. Ford, LLC, No. 8:23-CV-00709-WFJ-SPF, 2025 WL
1568216, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 3, 2025) (quoting Cadavid v. Saporta, 344 So. 3d 478,
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 June F. Mandell, deceased; All Unknown Parties claiming any right, title, or
interest in the subject property located at 940 Doveplum Court, Hollywood, Florida 33109,
including any spouses, heirs, devisees; and any party in possession of the property. ECF
No. 1-1.
Case 0:25-cv-61601-RS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 2 of 6

3
482 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)). 	“Attorney’s fees awarded under § 57.105 are analogous to
sanctions imposed under Rule 11.” 	Acosta v. Miami-Dade Cnty., No. 16-23241-CIV-
CANNON/OTAZO-REYES, 2021 WL 6010460, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2021), report and
recommendation 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
issues of either law or fact, this being tantamount to a finding that the action is frivolous
or completely untenable.” 	Acosta, 2021 WL 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, so his pleadings are “held to
a less stringent standard” and will 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 se litigants.” 	United States v. Morse, 532 F.3d 1130, 1133
(11th Cir. 2008); see, e.g., Yeh Ho v. Sabocik, 775 F. App’x 551, 555 (11th Cir. 2019)
(“[G]iven [plaintiff’s] pro se status, sanctions are not warranted even if we agreed with the
defendants that the appeal is frivolous.”).
The Complaint essentially alleged that Plaintiff was the fee simple owner of real
property and none of the named Defendants had a legitimate claim to or lien on the
property. 	See ECF No. 1-1. 	Plaintiff’s claims were supported by specific factual
allegations, including chronological details of a search for property title. 	See id. at 7–8.
Even if Plaintiff’s allegations and legal theories ultimately did not hold water, they were
not “completely untenable.” Acosta, 2021 WL 6010460, at *4 (citation omitted). Plaintiff’s
arguments “are not as patently frivolous in the face of established law and ‘utterly devoid
of merit’ as in the cases in which this court has sanctioned pro se parties.” McCavey v.
Case 0:25-cv-61601-RS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 3 of 6

4
Gold, 625 F. App’x 968, 972 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bonfiglio v. Nugent, 986 F.2d 1391,
1393 (11th Cir.1993)).
Moreover, this is not a case where the pro se plaintiff has a history of frivolous
litigation or was warned by the Court that his claims were unviable. 	Cf. Bonfiglio, 986
F.2d at 1394 (imposing sanctions against pro se appellant after he “refused to heed the
district court’s clear warning, and instead stubbornly filed this appeal in which he repeats
to this Court the utterly frivolous contentions he made in the district court”). 	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 Plaintiff should be sanctioned for
citing to nonexistent legal authorities in his Second Amended Complaint.2 If Plaintiff were
an attorney, 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 based on attorney’s “repeated,
numerous misrepresentations to the Court and refusal to take responsibility for them,”
including “misrepresentations of case law”). 	And “pro se litigants are not immune from
such sanctions,” especially where litigants continually “neglect [their] duty of candor to
this Court.” O’Brien v. Flick, No. 24-61529-CIV-DAMIAN, 2025 WL 242924, at *6–7 (S.D.
Fla. Jan. 10, 2025), aff’d, No. 25-10143, 2025 WL 2731627 (11th Cir. Sept. 25, 2025).
Yet, giving Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, it appears that Plaintiff tried to correct
2 Greenspring’s assertion appears to be true. The undersigned is unable to find some of
the legal authorities cited, leading to an inference that those authorities do not exist or, at
best, are identified by incorrect citations.
Case 0:25-cv-61601-RS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 4 of 6

5
the mistakes pointed out by Greenspring. 	First, Plaintiff did not include any fabricated
citations in his Response to the Motion. 	Plaintiff appears to cite to legitimate, relevant
cases. See generally ECF No. 22. Second, Plaintiff dismissed the action just two days
after the motion for sanctions was filed. ECF No. 20. By voluntarily dismissing his own
claims, Plaintiff brought a simple, speedy resolution 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 where plaintiffs proceeded to “drag on” with litigation
even after it became apparent that claims were frivolous), report and recommendation
adopted sub nom. Fuccillo v. Silver, 2020 WL 897989 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2020).
Sanctions are not warranted against Plaintiff, a pro se litigant who dismissed his claims
after less than three months of litigation.
In sum, the Court sees no reason at this juncture to administer the strong medicine
of sanctions under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 or Rule 11.3 The Motion should be denied.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Motion for
Sanctions, ECF No. 18, be DENIED.
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and
Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above
findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this district. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). The parties are hereby notified that a failure to timely
3 	Plaintiff 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 since Greenspring served Plaintiff on July 29, 2025, this
argument is meritless.
Case 0:25-cv-61601-RS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 5 of 6

6
object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on
unobjected-to 	factual 	and 	legal 	conclusions 	contained 	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 this 26th day of January
2026.
_____________________________________
PATRICK M. HUNT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
The Honorable Rodney Smith
All Counsel of Record
Ralph John Massetti, Jr.
8390 Via de Ventura, Suite 110
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
PRO SE
Case 0:25-cv-61601-RS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 6 of 6