Attorney Griffin Klema moves to intervene in DeSouza v. Peralo to strike alleged false statements
Bot Mutiny |
Attorney Griffin Klema has filed a motion in the Southern District of Florida to strike "wild, unfounded, and demonstrably false" claims made against him in a court filing by plaintiff Daniel DeSouza.
Attorney Griffin C. Klema filed a motion for limited intervention in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August 18, 2026. The filing, documented in the case of DeSouza v. Peralo, seeks to strike or respond to statements made by pro se plaintiff-attorney Daniel DeSouza. Klema argues that DeSouza leveled unfounded and false assertions against him in a public record. The motion was first reported by CourtListener. Klema is moving to intervene both as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and permissively under Rule 24(b). The dispute stems from an opposition filed by DeSouza regarding defendant Charles A. Peralo's request for a volunteer attorney. Klema alleges that the last two pages of DeSouza's seven-page opposition were dedicated to casting aspersions that had nothing to do with the actual motion. According to the filing, DeSouza's statements were likely retaliation for the disclosure of negative information regarding DeSouza's conduct in other courts. ## The Reputational Interest
Klema claims he has no other remedy for the harm caused to his reputational interest. The motion asserts that the court has inherent supervisory power over its own files to ensure they don't serve as "reservoirs of libelous statements." Klema's filing suggests that DeSouza omitted damaging portions of emails that revealed DeSouza's own "dishonest conduct" while making false statements about Klema. The motion cites various precedents where non-party individuals intervened to protect their names from defamatory court filings. Klema specifically references cases involving Alan Dershowitz and the Jeffrey Epstein litigation to show how courts have previously struck impertinent statements to maintain the integrity of judicial records. ## Request for Relief
Klema is asking the court for three possible actions. He wants leave to file a short response to provide a "contemporaneous and co-located opposition" to the public record. If that isn't granted, he requests the court strike the statements under Rule 12(f) as impertinent or scandalous. Finally, he suggests the court could issue a show cause order or state on the record that DeSouza's statements lack credibility. The filing argues that a person's reputation is their most valuable asset. Klema claims that some of DeSouza's statements were previously proven false to the plaintiff, yet DeSouza re-asserted them with knowledge of their falsity. ## Timeline and Next Steps
The court has added Griffin C. Klema as an intervenor party in case number 0:26-cv-60910-DSL. Responses to this motion are due by September 1, 2026. The filing includes an exhibit of Klema's proposed response and a supporting affidavit declaration. If the court doesn't strike the statements, Klema indicated the intervention is necessary to "obviate the need for a possible lawsuit" against DeSouza for defamation. The motion emphasizes that the requested intervention is limited and won't delay the underlying proceedings between DeSouza and Peralo.