Connect with us

Federal Judges

George Zimmerman of ‘How’s My Driving’ Died While Fighting Foreclosure In Florida

PNC Bank filed for foreclosure of Zimmerman’s West Palm Beach residence in S.D. Fl. District court in March and George passed in October 2019.

Published

on

PNC Bank, National Association v. Zimmermann

(9:19-cv-80540)
District Court, S.D. Florida

SEP 5, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 5, 2021

PNC filed for foreclosure of Zimmerman’s West Palm Beach residence in S.D. Fl. District court on March 18, 2019. A notice of Lis Pendens by PNC Bank, National Association for property located at 257 E. Lakewood Road, West Palm Beach, FL 33405 was filed on April 22.

George Zimmerman passed on Friday, Oct. 11, 2019. Court records show the case was stayed on Oct. 16, the day of the funeral at the family-run funeral home (Salandra) in PA. The stay was vacated by court order on March 5 and PNC aggressively returned to the task at hand, foreclosure of the property.

After some months, in early June 2020 a settlement was reached. On Aug. 31, 2020 PNC released the lis pendens and voluntarily dismissed the case, of course, with prejudice.

George P. Zimmermann, age 76, of Avella, PA and West Palm Beach, FL passed away peacefully Friday, October 11, 2019 in Good Samaritan Hospital, West Palm Beach, FL.

He was born August 18, 1943 in Astoria Queens, NY, a son of the late George Phillip and Evelyn Veronica Haney Zimmermann. He graduated from Power Memorial High School and attended Queens College both in New York.

George was an accomplished entrepreneur who started and successfully ran many businesses in his life.

He was founder and CEO of Sertec Corp. and held the copyright for “How’s My Driving?” seen on the back of thousands of vehicles.

A business associate of his is quoted as saying “his creativeness and business acumen were to be greatly admired.”

Left behind to cherish his memory are his devoted wife Lisa Salandra Zimmermann, his beloved children sons Nicholas and Pierce and daughter Margaux at home, son Frederick Zimmermann of Ocklawaha, FL, daughter Kimberly Allegrini and her husband Andrew of Montgomery, NY, grandchildren Anna and Frederick Zimmermann and Brandon and Charlie Kroll, his sister Anne Leonardo and her husband Alfonso of Woodhaven, NY and his loving sisters-in-law Linda Salandra Dweck and her husband Edward and Diana Salandra all of Palm Beach, FL.

Friends and relatives were welcome from 2:00PM to 4:00PM and 6:00PM to 8:00PM Wednesday, October 16, 2019 in Salandra Funeral and Cremation Services, Inc. Joseph P. Salandra owner/supervisor where a Blessing Services will take place at noon Thursday, October 17, 2019.

Entombment will follow in Queen of Heaven Cemetery, Peters Township, McMurray, PA. A Memorial Mass of Christian Burial will be celebrated at 11:00AM Monday, November 11, 2019 at St. Edwards Roman Catholic Church, Palm Beach.

To view or extend condolences please visit www.salandrafunerals.com

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Appellate Circuit

Judge Jill Pryor on a Panel about Judicial Recusals? That’s a Contradiction, Right There.

Judge Cooke has a conflict of interest based on her financial statements, which revealed interests in companies doing business with one of the defendants.

Published

on

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 20-13674
Non-Argument Calendar

JAMES BUCKMAN, MAURICE SYMONETTE,

versus
LANCASTER MORTGAGE CO.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO.,
as Trustee under the pooling and servicing agreement series rast 2006-A8,

SECURITY AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

U.S. TREASURY,

Defendants-Appellees,

ONE WEST BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

OCT 7, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 7, 2021

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-24184-MGC

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

James Buckman and Maurice Symonette (“Buckman and Symonette”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of their second amended complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading.

They argue that the district court erred and demonstrated bias by dismissing their case because they had filed a motion for an additional three-day extension of time and the district court provided a window for responses to the motion by the defendants, but then dismissed the case before the responses were due.1

After review, we affirm.

1 Over four months after filing their notice of appeal from the dismissal of their complaint, Buckman and Symonette filed two motions for recusal of the district court judge, arguing that she had a conflict of interest based on her financial statements, which revealed interests in companies doing business with one of the defendants. (LIF: THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BE DEUTSCHE BANK)

The district court denied the motions.

Buckman and Symonette did not file an amended or new notice of appeal following entry of that order.

Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the motion for recusal.

See McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465, 1474 (11th Cir. 1986) (holding that, although we liberally construe notices of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 to include orders not expressly designated, that allowance does not extend to an order that was not entered when the notice of appeal was filed);

see also LaChance v. Duffy’s Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 837–38 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that we lacked jurisdiction over a post-judgment order awarding attorney’s fees where the motion for attorney’s fees was not filed until after the notice of appeal and the plaintiff failed to file an amended notice of appeal from the order awarding fees).

I. Background

In October 2019, Buckman and Symonette filed a pro se 45-page complaint against eight defendants including numerous banks, a mortgage company, the Security and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Treasury, and other entities, raising numerous claims including:

(1) quiet title;
(2) slander of title;
(3) unjust enrichment;
(4) violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act;
(5) fraud and concealment;
(6) violation of timely assignment and lack of consideration;
and
(7) various violations of several Florida statutes.

Thereafter, in December 2019, Buckman and Symonette filed a 51-page amended complaint asserting a total of 11 causes of action.

On July 24, 2020, the district court, sua sponte, struck the amended complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading.

The district court set forth the pleading rules in its order, and provided that the plaintiffs had until July 31, 2020 to file a second amended complaint.

The district court emphasized that, in the second amended complaint, Plaintiffs are required to make a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Plaintiffs must also state each theory of liability separately “in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

The newly amended complaint should clearly delineate which factual allegations and cited laws are relevant to the asserted cause of action.

This includes specifying which Defendant is liable under each cause of action and which Defendant is implicated in each factual allegation.

Failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice or other appropriate sanctions.

On July 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an extension of time to file their second amended complaint. The district court granted the motion and ordered that the second amended com- plaint be filed on or before August 6, 2020.

On August 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking three more days to file their second amended complaint. On the same date, after filing their extension motion, they filed their second amended complaint.

The 92-page second amended complaint added 4 new causes of action and suffered from many of the same issues as the first amended complaint.

On August 17, 2020, the district court dismissed with prejudice the second amended complaint explaining that the second amended complaint “does not cure the defects that required striking of the initial Complaint.”

This appeal followed.2

2 Following the dismissal of their complaint, Buckman and Symonette filed a motion for reconsideration in the district court, which was denied. However, they do not raise any arguments related to the denial of their motion for re- consideration in their brief. Accordingly, the district court’s resolution of the motion for reconsideration is not before us.

II. Discussion

Buckman and Symonette argue that the district court erred and demonstrated bias when it dismissed their case with prejudice while their motion for extension of time was pending.

Specifically, they argue that the district court docketed their motion for a three- day extension of time to file the second amended complaint and set “responses due by 8/20/2020,” but then dismissed the case before that date.

They also raise arguments related to the merits of their underlying claims.

The district court did not err in dismissing the case. On the day the second amended complaint was due, Buckman and Symonette filed the request for a three-day extension of time, but they then filed a second amended complaint the same day.

The filing of the second amended complaint on the day it was due mooted the motion for an extension of time and the related re- sponse period.

Once the second amended complaint was filed, there was nothing left for the district court to do except review the complaint to determine whether the plaintiffs corrected the previously identified pleading issues.

To the extent that Buckman and Symonette’s brief could be liberally construed as challenging the district court’s dismissal of the second-amended complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading, we review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion.

Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021); see also Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)

(“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”).

“A shotgun pleading is a complaint that violates either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both.”

Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324.

Rule 8 requires that the complaint set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim” demonstrating an entitlement to relief, and Rule 10 requires that a plaintiff “state [his] claims in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and 10(b).

Rule 10 further provides that each claim be stated in separate counts “[i]f doing so would promote clarity.” Id. R. 10(b).

We have repeatedly condemned the use of shotgun pleadings.

See Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324; Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001).

When a plaintiff files a shotgun pleading, a district court must give him one chance to replead before dismissing his case with prejudice on shotgun pleading grounds.
Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295–96 (11th Cir. 2018).

The district court should explain how the pleading violated the shotgun rule so that the plaintiff can remedy his next pleading.

Id.

Where, as here, the plaintiff is provided fair notice of the specific defects in his complaint and a meaningful chance to fix it but fails to correct the defects, the district court does not abuse its discretion by dismissing with prejudice on shotgun pleading grounds.

Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1358–59 (11th Cir. 2018).

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice because Buckman and Symonette failed to correct the pleading defects.

Id.

Consequently, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Continue Reading

Debt Collector

Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed Lined Up to Award Sanctions including Attorney Fees Against Attorney Lee Segal

Florida Federal Courts are on the run from LawsinFlorida.com but despite your games, we’re here and the people are too, watchin’.

Published

on

Florida Limited Investment Properties, Inc. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee

(8:21-cv-02130)

District Court, M.D. Florida

SEP 10, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 28, 2021

Florida Federal Courts are really tryin’ hard to hide which case and which judge is gonna screw lawyer Lee Segal for standing up to that German Bank, the straw man known as Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, but we’re all over them and they cannot hide the corruption from the people… We support Segal.

Federal judges take note, you should be sanctioning the corrupt bank for it’s decades of deception and lies. Otherwise, you’re just part of the ochlocracy and and Outlaw in a dirty black robe.

UPDATE: OCT 7, 2021

ENDORSED ORDER: Defendant has represented that, as of September 30, 2021, Plaintiff still has not properly effected service of process on it. (Doc. # 38).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to file by October 15, 2021, a status report concerning its efforts at service of process, or, if it has effected service, file proof of such service on the docket.

If Plaintiff fails to respond to this Court’s directive, the Court may issue a show-cause order pursuant to Local Rule 3.10.

Based upon its review of the record, the Court also sets aside the requirement for the parties to file a case management report at this time. If the Defendant is properly served in this case, the Court will enter an order setting a new deadline regarding that report.

Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/7/2021.

FL. FEDERAL COURT SWITCHES AGAIN... READ THE HISTORY, CLICK THE IMAGE

ENDORSED ORDER: Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. # 33) is hereby referred to the Honorable Julie S. Sneed, United States Magistrate Judge, for the issuance of a report and recommendation, including any hearings, motions, and deadlines related thereto. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/21/2021. (KMH) (Entered: 09/21/2021)

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Tampa)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:21-cv-02130-VMC-JSS

 

Florida Limited Investment Properties, Inc. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee
Assigned to: Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed

Case in other court:  Florida Southern, 2:21-cv-14039

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal

Date Filed: 09/10/2021
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Petitioner
Florida Limited Investment Properties, Inc. represented by Lee Segal
Segal & Schuh Law Group, PL
18167 US Hwy 19 N Ste 100
Clearwater, FL 33764
727-824-5775
Fax: 888-672-7347
Email: lee@segalschuh.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Respondent
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee represented by Jason H. Okleshen
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
777 S Flagler Dr Ste 300E
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6167
561/650-7900
Fax: 561/655-6222
Email: okleshenj@gtlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBeth Ann Norrow
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
450 S Orange Ave Ste 650
Orlando, FL 32801
248-670-0353
Email: norrowb@gtlaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
09/10/2021 27 ORDER Granting 22 MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 9/10/2021. See attached document for full details. (cds) [Transferred from flsd on 9/10/2021.] (Entered: 09/10/2021)
09/10/2021 28 Case transferred in from District of Florida Southern; Case Number 2:21-cv-14039. File received electronically (Entered: 09/10/2021)
09/10/2021 29 TRANSFER IN from the Southern District of Florida. Case assigned to District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington and Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed. New Case Number: 8:21-cv-2130-VMC-JSS. (JNB) (Entered: 09/10/2021)
09/10/2021 30 ENDORSED ORDER: Defendant removed this case on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Yet, the notice of removal fails to sufficiently establish Plaintiff’s citizenship. The notice of removal merely states that Plaintiff is “is a dissolved Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Bellaire Bluffs, Florida.” (Doc. # 1). But “a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen.” Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). Thus, “[t]o sufficiently allege the citizenships of” a limited liability company, “a party must list the citizenships of all the members of the limited liability company.” Id. Accordingly, to establish that complete diversity exists, Defendant must file an amended notice of removal listing the citizenships of all the members of Plaintiff by September 17, 2021. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/10/2021. (KMH) (Entered: 09/10/2021)
09/15/2021 31 NOTICE by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee re 1 Complaint, 30 Order; NOTICE OF REMOVAL (AMENDED). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – FLIP Sunbiz Filing and Articles of Dissolution, # 2 Exhibit B – DBNTC Corp Exist Records)(Norrow, Beth) (Entered: 09/15/2021)
09/15/2021 32 ENDORSED ORDER: Counsel are directed to meet and confer, in person or by telephone, and by September 29, 2021, file a completed Case Management Report. The Court believes that six to eight months is a sufficient period of time to conduct discovery in the vast majority of cases. If the parties believe that more than eight months will be needed to complete discovery, the parties should provide the Court with a detailed explanation as to why additional time is needed and a timeline for the discovery that is planned. After the Case Management Report is filed, the Court will determine whether a Case Management Hearing is necessary before entry of a Case Management and Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/15/2021. (KMH) (Entered: 09/15/2021)
09/20/2021 33 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 – Test Cases, # 2 Exhibit 2 – DBNTC-BNYM Cases, # 3 Exhibit 3 – Docket, # 4 Exhibit 4 – Show Cause Order, # 5 Exhibit 5 – Response to Order to Show Cause, # 6 Exhibit 6 – Dismissal and Re-Filed Complain, # 7 Exhibit 7 – Affidavit of CT Corp)(Norrow, Beth) (Entered: 09/20/2021)
09/20/2021 34 NOTICE to the Courts to take judicial notice regarding 33 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 – Segal Filings on behalf of 4417 Rudde, # 2 Exhibit 2- Segal Filings on behalf of Ziferryn Ventures, # 3 Exhibit 3- Segal Filings on behalf of George Weber, # 4 Exhibit 4- Segal Filings on behalf of Carla Turner-Hahn, # 5 Exhibit 5- Segal Filings on behalf of Anna Lofgren, # 6 Exhibit 6 – Segal Filings on behalf of Michael and Marcia Haulsee, # 7 Exhibit 7- Segal Filings on behalf of Jacaranda)(Norrow, Beth) (Entered: 09/20/2021)
09/20/2021 35 NOTICE to the Courts to take judicial notice regarding 33 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 – Kaye Pinellas County Case 20-2097 Docket, # 2 Exhibit 2 – Kaye Okechobee Case 20-CA-148 Docket, # 3 Exhibit 3 – Segal Affidavit)(Norrow, Beth) (Entered: 09/20/2021)
09/21/2021 36 ENDORSED ORDER: Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. # 33) is hereby referred to the Honorable Julie S. Sneed, United States Magistrate Judge, for the issuance of a report and recommendation, including any hearings, motions, and deadlines related thereto. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/21/2021. (KMH) (Entered: 09/21/2021)

U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Tampa)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:21-cv-02130-VMC-JSS

Florida Limited Investment Properties, Inc. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee
Assigned to: Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed

Case in other court:  Florida Southern, 2:21-cv-14039

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal

Date Filed: 09/10/2021
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Jurisdiction: Diversity

 

Date Entered # Docket Text
09/21/2021 36 ENDORSED ORDER: Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. # 33) is hereby referred to the Honorable Julie S. Sneed, United States Magistrate Judge, for the issuance of a report and recommendation, including any hearings, motions, and deadlines related thereto. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/21/2021. (KMH) (Entered: 09/21/2021)
09/30/2021 37 ENDORSED ORDER: Pursuant to the Court’s order entered on September 15, 2021 (Doc. # 32), the parties were required to file a case management report by September 29, 2021. Based on a review of the docket, a case management report has not been filed. The parties are directed to file a case management report by October 6, 2021. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/30/2021. (KMH) (Entered: 09/30/2021)
09/30/2021 38 NOTICE by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee re 26 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations Order on Motion to Remand Order on Motion to Strike Order on Report and Recommendations, 37 Order Notice of Lack of Service of Process on Defendant and Notice of Defendant’s Compliance with Case Management (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – Order Adopting Recommendation (Quashing SOP), # 2 Exhibit B – Email to Lee Segal)(Norrow, Beth) (Entered: 09/30/2021)

U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Tampa)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:21-cv-02130-VMC-JSS

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Florida Limited Investment Properties, Inc. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee
Assigned to: Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed

Case in other court:  Florida Southern, 2:21-cv-14039

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal

Date Filed: 09/10/2021
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Jurisdiction: Diversity

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
09/30/2021 38 NOTICE by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee re 26 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion to Remand, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Report and Recommendations, 37 Order; Notice of Lack of Service of Process on Defendant and Notice of Defendant’s Compliance with Case Management. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – Order Adopting Recommendation (Quashing SOP), # 2 Exhibit B – Email to Lee Segal)(Norrow, Beth) (Entered: 09/30/2021)
10/07/2021 39 ENDORSED ORDER: Defendant has represented that, as of September 30, 2021, Plaintiff still has not properly effected service of process on it. (Doc. # 38). Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to file by October 15, 2021, a status report concerning its efforts at service of process, or, if it has effected service, file proof of such service on the docket. If Plaintiff fails to respond to this Court’s directive, the Court may issue a show-cause order pursuant to Local Rule 3.10. Based upon its review of the record, the Court also sets aside the requirement for the parties to file a case management report at this time. If the Defendant is properly served in this case, the Court will enter an order setting a new deadline regarding that report. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/7/2021. (SGM) (Entered: 10/07/2021)
Continue Reading

Appellate Circuit

A Chiefly Notorious 3-Panel Doubles Up On the Award of Sanctions Against a Pro Se Litigant

We order Watkins to pay double the costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees and to assess those fees and double costs against Watkins.

Published

on

The Triple Panel Doubles Up On the Pro Se

 REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 18, 2021

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-11573

Non-Argument Calendar

D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-04345-ELR

ROBERT L. WATKINS, PRO SE

Plaintiff – Appellant,

versus

CAPITAL CITY BANK & GUARANTY,

As a defendant as it had merged with FMB, EDWARD J. TARVER,

successor in interest to Farmers and Merchants Bank,

GOODMAN, MCGUFFEY, LLP, ROBERT LUSKIN,

KEVIN C. PATRICK,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

(September 15, 2021)

Before WILLIAM ‘SO MANY LIES’ PRYOR, Chief Judge, BERT ‘REPUTATION IS EVERYTHING’ JORDAN and BRITT ‘NO JUDICIAL OATH’ GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Robert Watkins appeals pro se the dismissal with prejudice of his complaint against and the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to his former attorney, Edward J. Tarver, Capital City Bank & Guaranty, and its counsel, Goodman McGuffey, LLP, Robert Luskin, and Kevin C. Patrick. We affirm.

Watkins abandoned any challenge he could have made to the dismissal of his complaint and to the order awarding the defendants their attorneys’ fees and costs. Despite obtaining four extensions of time from this Court and an opportunity to correct his deficient brief, Watkins chose to relabel his complaint as his initial brief.

Watkins does not dispute that his claims against all the defendants were untimely, see O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33, and barred by res judicata.

He also does not dispute that the defendants were entitled to the expenses they incurred to defend against a complaint he filed after two federal judges warned him that “continuing the pursuit of frivolous litigation may result in sanctions, injunction, and/or other appropriate relief.”

“We read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally,” but Watkins has abandoned his opportunity to contest the dismissal of his complaint or the award of sanctions against him. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).

The defendants jointly request that we sanction Watkins for pursuing a frivolous appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 38.

Rule 38 states, “If a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.” Id.

The defendants argue that Watkins has badgered them for almost two decades, this appeal constitutes the sixth time he has forced them to respond to “the same claims” in this Court, and this appeal “is without legal merit and presented to further harass [them] and needlessly increase the costs of litigation.”

Watkins has not responded to the motion.

Rule 38 exists “to assess just damages in order to penalize an appellant who takes a frivolous appeal and to compensate the injured appellee for the delay and added expense of defending the district court’s judgment.” Burlington N. R. Co. v. Woods, 480 U.S. 1, 7 (1987).

Watkins’s serial litigation warrants an award to the defendants for their expenses in defending this appeal. See United States v. Morse, 532 F.3d 1130, 1133 (11th Cir. 2008) (sanctioning pro se litigant).

We order Watkins to pay double the costs the defendants have incurred in this appeal and remand with instructions for the district court to calculate reasonable attorneys’ fees and to assess those fees and double costs against Watkins.

We AFFIRM the dismissal of Watkins’s complaint and the award for the defendants’ expenses in the district court, we AWARD SANCTIONS of double costs and attorneys’ fees to the defendants under Rule 38 for this appeal, and we REMAND for the district court to assess reasonable attorneys’ fees and double costs for the defense of this appeal.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

• Continue to provide this website, content, resources, community and help center for free to the many homeowners, residents, Texans and as we’ve expanded, people nationwide who need access without a paywall or subscription.

• Help us promote our campaign through marketing, pr, advertising and reaching out to government, law firms and anyone that will listen and can assist.

Thank you for your trust, belief and support in our conviction to help Floridian residents and citizens nationwide take back their freedom. Your Donations and your Voice are so important.



Continue Reading

Most Read

Copyright © 2021 LawsInFlorida.com is an online brand name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware | Caricatures by DonkeyHotey