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.
