Appellate Circuit
Judge Charles Wilson and Judge Lisa Branch Like Nothin’ Better than Reviving a Personal Vendetta
Our refrain remains the same. Check the case history to see if you’re about to be “stitched-up” by a panel which is maliciously assembled to execute personal vendettas.
In This 2021 Foreclosure Case with Sanctions, two members of the Appellate Panel were on Prior Decisions.
In the case of Judge Wilson, he sat on the Coastal Bank v. Martin case (11th Cir.) and in the case of Judge Branch, she was a Panel member in the $2.7M judgment case referenced herein, the Greenstein v. Bank of Ozarks, while she was a Justice on the Court of Appeals in Georgia State Court. Now, the lawyer who was a named party in that case in relation to CEP–TEN Mile Resorts, is before Branch as a Federal Circuit Judge and both Wilson and Branch are conveniently and non-randomly assigned to the 3-panel in this case.
It’s another example of judicial bias from the Eleventh Circuit. “Our refrain remains the same” and we warn parties to do their homework and look to the lower court and aged history of litigants to see if you’re about to be “stitched-up” by a panel which is maliciously assembled to execute personal vendettas.
MAY 29, 2021
Coastal Bank v. Martin, No. 17-11998 (11th Cir. Nov. 20, 2017)
Greenstein v Bank of the Ozarks, (GA COA, 2014)
(May 28, 2021)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
More than eight years after Truist Bank foreclosed on Roderick Wright’s and his mother’s homes,1 Wright sued Truist, alleging misconduct related to the underlying loans.
On Truist’s motion, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed Wright’s complaint for failure to state a claim.
Wright argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint because:
(1) he pleaded an actionable claim for breach of duty by a notary public,
(2) his Georgia RICO Act claim was not time-barred, and
(3) his substantive claims were adequate to support his claims for punitive damages and attorney’s fees.
Because the district court properly dismissed these claims, we affirm.
Truist requests that we deem Wright’s appeal to be frivolous and award sanctions.
Wright requests that we strike portions of Truist’s motion for sanctions for ad hominem language and for us to award sanctions in his favor.
Because we conclude that Wright’s appeal is frivolous, we grant Truist’s motion for sanctions and remand to the district court for an assessment of attorney’s fees and costs.
As to Wright’s motion to strike and for sanctions, we conclude that the arguments in Truist’s motion for sanctions were not improper and deny Wright’s motion.
1 Truist was then known as the Branch Banking and Trust Company.
I. Background
A. Facts
Wright owned a real estate development business and began banking with Truist around 2000. In March 2010, Truist approached Wright with a restructuring plan for some of his commercial loans.
The plan involved securing and cross- collateralizing the loans with Wright’s and his mother’s homes.
Wright alleges that Truist told him that the restructuring plan would be in his best interests. In reliance on that representation, he subsequently executed the plan.
According to Wright, there were no witnesses or notaries present when he signed the plan documents. Afterwards, he alleges, Truist affixed false notary public attestations and witness signatures to the documents.
Truist then allegedly refused to accept full payoffs of the loans.
In November 2010, several months after the parties executed the restructuring plan, Truist foreclosed on Wright’s and his mother’s homes.
B. Procedural History
On December 16, 2019, Wright filed a complaint against Truist in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia. Wright alleged that Truist was liable for breach of duty by a notary public, a violation of the Georgia RICO Act, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.2
Truist subsequently removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
2 Wright also alleged counts of fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, economic duress, and to “set aside improper documents.” Because the district court dismissed these claims and Wright
Truist then moved to dismiss Wright’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In its motion, Truist argued that:
(1) Georgia law does not recognize a private cause of action based on violations of the notary public statutes,
(2) Wright’s Georgia RICO Act claim was barred by the applicable five-year statute of limitations, and
(3) Wright was not entitled to punitive damages or attorney’s fees because he failed to establish his underlying claims.
Wright responded and argued that Truist’s “procurement and participation in the intentional violations of” the notary public statutes was actionable under Georgia law, his Georgia RICO Act claim was timely because it “ar[ose] out of the conduct associated with the execution of [sealed documents]” and was subject to a twenty-year statute of limitations, and his claims for punitive damages and attorney’s fees survived because his underlying claims were adequately pleaded.
The district court granted Truist’s motion to dismiss.
It found that “[i]n Georgia, there is no private cause of action for a claim arising under the notary public statutes,” and that “employers are neither subject directly to nor held vicariously liable for violations of OCGA § 45-17-11 committed by a notary public employed by them.”
It rejected Wright’s argument that a twenty-year statute of limitations applied to his Georgia RICO Act claim because the Georgia RICO Act contains a five-year statute of limitations.
Lastly, it dismissed Wright’s claims for punitive damages and attorney’s fees because it had dismissed all of Wright’s underlying claims.
Wright timely appealed.
2 Wright also alleged counts of fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, economic duress, and to “set aside improper documents.” Because the district court dismissed these claims and Wright does not challenge that decision on appeal, we will limit our discussion to Wright’s remaining claims.
Koch-founded charity asks for Supreme Court help to keep donor list secret. Doing so hides the truth about Amici, they are brought in to do a job, for one side of the argument and that’s usually for the one-percenters, not #WeThePeople https://t.co/kGrCTtdw5n#OperationWhiteout https://t.co/lQUvYL5neh pic.twitter.com/tdE1iDtwyQ
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) May 28, 2021
On appeal, Wright argues that the district court improperly dismissed his claim for breach of duty by a notary public because it “misinterpreted case law detailing liability of an employer that procured an employee-notary’s violation of [the notary public statute].”
He also argues that it erred in dismissing his Georgia RICO Act claim because it “failed to recognize that the racketeering activity alleged . . . related to the improper attestations of the notaries subjecting the RICO claim to twenty-year statute of limitations under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-23 because the false swearing and false statements were upon sealed instruments.”
Finally, he argues that because his claim for breach of duty by a notary public and his Georgia RICO Act claim “should be reinstated . . . [his claims] for punitive damages and attorneys’ fees should likewise be reinstated.”
After Wright filed his opening brief, Truist filed a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.3
In its 28 U.S.C. § 1927 states:
“Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.”
Truist argued that Wright’s appeal was frivolous because it was clearly foreclosed by governing law. Truist also made references to the facts that:
(1) Wright’s counsel, Eric J. Nathan, had been sanctioned by this Court in Coastal Bank v. Martin, 717 F. App’x 860, 865–66 (11th Cir. 2017), for failing to disclose controlling authority,
and
(2) Truist had obtained a judgment against Nathan in a separate matter for $2,737,372.61. (LIF Comment: Greenstein v. Bank of the Ozarks, 757 S.E.2d 254 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
Based on these facts, Truist suggested that Wright and Nathan were waging a “vendetta” against it.
In response, Wright filed a motion to strike Truist’s motion for containing ad hominem language and requested sanctions.
He argued that Truist “inserted no fewer than eight ad hominem attacks directly, and unnecessarily, attacking the personal credibility and character of Counsel for Wright and Wright himself,” in violation of Eleventh Circuit Rule 25-6.4
According to Wright, it was inappropriate for Truist to mention that Nathan had been sanctioned by this Court or that it had obtained a judgment against Nathan.
He also requested that we impose sanctions against Truist and its counsel under our inherent authority for their purported “continued and pervasive ad hominem attacks.”
3 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.”
28 U.S.C. § 1927 states: “Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.”
4 Eleventh Circuit Rule 25-6 states: “When any paper filed with the court, including motions and briefs, contains . . . ad hominem or defamatory language . . . the court . . . may without prior notice take appropriate action . . . includ[ing] ordering that: the document be sealed; specified language or information be stricken from the documents; the document be struck from the record; the clerk be directed to remove the document from electronic public access; the party who filed the document either explain why including the specified language or disclosing the specified information in the document is relevant, necessary, and appropriate or file a redacted or replacement document.”
II. Analysis
We review the district court’s grant of Truist’s motion to dismiss de novo, accepting the allegations in Wright’s complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to him. McGroarty v. Swearingen, 977 F.3d 1302, 1306 (11th Cir. 2020).
A. Breach of Duty by a Notary Public
Wright argues that the district court erroneously dismissed his claim for breach of duty by a notary public. The district court dismissed the claim because it found that, “[i]n Georgia, there is no private cause of action for a claim arising under the notary public statutes.”
Under O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8(d), “[a] notary public shall not execute a notarial certificate containing a statement known by the notary to be false nor perform any action with an intent to deceive or defraud.” In Anthony v. American General Financial Services Inc., 697 S.E.2d 166, 171–75 (Ga. 2010) (“Anthony I”), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the notary public statutes do not create a private cause of action. We subsequently adopted that ruling and affirmed a district court’s dismissal of “a private civil claim under the notary fee statute.”5
5 In his complaint, Wright bases his claim for breach of duty by a notary public on O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8(d) in conjunction with O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6. Section 51-1-6 states:
“When the law requires a person to perform an act for the benefit of another or to refrain from doing an act which may injure another, although no cause of action is given in express terms, the injured party may recover for the breach of such legal duty if he suffers damage thereby.”
Wright does not make any argument related to O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6 on appeal.
Regardless, in Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Morrisroe, 746 S.E.2d 859, 861 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013), the Court of Appeals of Georgia held that O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8(d) in conjunction with O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6 does not create a viable cause of action because “[a] duty cannot rest solely on OCGA § 51-1-6 . . . because it merely sets forth general principles of tort law.”
Thus, O.C.G.A. § 51-1-6 does not affect our analysis of whether there is a private cause of action for breach of duty by a notary public under O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8(d).
Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 626 F.3d 1318, 1321 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Anthony II”).
Wright ignores these holdings and points to language in Anthony I where the Supreme Court of Georgia stated: “[A]lthough a corporation cannot be directly or vicariously liable for a violation of OCGA § 45-17-11, it still may be liable if it procures or otherwise qualifies as a party to or participating in such a violation by a notary.” 697 S.E.2d at 171;
See id. at 170 (“But under well-established principles, the corporation (or other person) may still be liable if it participates in or procures the notary’s violation. In terms of criminal liability, this is simply the concept of being a party to a crime.”).
He argues that this language permits his claim against Truist to go forward.
But Wright misinterprets this language. Although the Supreme Court of Georgia stated that a “corporation . . . may still be liable if it participates in or procures the notary’s violation,” Anthony I, 697 S.E.2d at 170 (emphasis omitted), it was not creating a private cause of action for violations of the notary public statutes.
Instead, it was merely noting that a plaintiff “may be able to pursue civil liability against [a party who violates the statute] under other applicable tort or contract laws of this State.” Id. at 175.
It is for those claims—for violations of “other applicable tort or contract laws”—that a corporation may be held liable as a joint wrongdoer under the notary public statutes.
See id. at 170 (“[I]n all cases, a person who maliciously procures an injury to be done to another, whether an actionable wrong or a breach of contract, is a joint wrongdoer and may be subject to an action either alone or jointly with the person who actually committed the injury.” (quoting O.C.G.A. § 51-12-30)).
Because the Supreme Court of Georgia and this Court have both clearly held that the notary public statutes do not create a private cause of action, the district court properly dismissed Wright’s claim.6
New post: Constitutional Protections of our Property and Liberties Have Been Intentionally Eroded Over Time. https://t.co/tRllIfUmmo
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) May 27, 2021
B. Georgia RICO Act
Next, Wright argues that the district court applied the wrong statute of limitations to his Georgia RICO Act claim.
Under the Georgia RICO Act, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, a criminal or civil action or proceeding under this chapter may be commenced up until five years after the conduct in violation of a provision of this chapter terminates or the cause of action
accrues.” O.C.G.A. § 16-14-8 (2011)7;
See Glock, Inc. v. Harper, 796 S.E.2d 304, 306 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
The district court applied this five-year statute of limitations and found that Wright’s claim was “over three (3) years late” because “the most recent action taken by [Truist] relevant to this claim was on May 3, 2011, when it foreclosed on the last of the collateral properties.”8
Wright argues that his Georgia RICO Act claim is subject to the twenty-year statute of limitations of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-23 instead, because the claim arises out of conduct related to the execution of sealed instruments.9
This argument fails for two reasons.
First, the Georgia RICO Act states that the five-year statute of limitations applies “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law.”10 O.C.G.A. § 16-14-8 (2011).
In his reply brief, Wright argues that “[t]he word ‘notwithstanding’ does not mean that no other rule could apply” and that nothing in the statute “prevent[s] a party from availing itself of a more liberal rule of law such as O.C.G.A. § 9-3-23.”11
But “notwithstanding” means: “Despite; in spite of.” Notwithstanding, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
Thus, we conclude that O.C.G.A. § 16-14-8 (2011) supplies the exclusive statute of limitations for Wright’s Georgia RICO Act claim. Because Wright did not file his claim within five years of May 3, 2011, the district court properly dismissed it.
Second, Wright’s expansive interpretation of the twenty-year statute of limitations for sealed instruments has been rejected by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
In Harris v. Black, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that “if suit is brought upon an official bond under seal, for a breach thereof,” then the twenty- year statute of limitations applies. 85 S.E. 742, 747 (Ga. 1915).
But “if the action is brought against the officer individually, and not upon his bond, different periods of limitations may apply according to whether the action sounds in tort or in contract; and if the former, the limitation is dependent upon the particular character of the tort.” Id.
Because Wright’s Georgia RICO Act claim is not a claim “upon an official bond,” it is not subject to the twenty-year statute of limitations of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-23 and was properly dismissed.
6 Even if O.C.G.A. § 45-17-8(d) created a private cause of action for breach of duty by a notary public, Wright’s claim would still fail because he did not meet the four-year statutes of limitations for injuries to realty or personalty under O.C.G.A. §§ 9-3-30 and 9-3-31. See, e.g., Godwin v. Mitzpah Farms, LLLP, 766 S.E.2d 497, 507 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
7 O.C.G.A. § 16-14-8 was amended in 2015. Because the amendment was not retroactive, see Glock, Inc. v. Harper, 796 S.E.2d 304, 306 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017), we will apply the version of the statute that was in effect at the relevant time.
8 Wright does not dispute that the statute of limitations on his Georgia RICO Act claim began to run on May 3, 2011.
9 See O.C.G.A. § 9-3-23 (“Actions upon bonds or other instruments under seal shall be brought within 20 years after the right of action has accrued.”).
10 Even though the district court dismissed Wright’s Georgia RICO Act claim based on O.C.G.A. § 16-4-8—the applicable statute of limitations—Wright did not discuss the statute at all in his opening brief.
C. Punitive Damages and Attorney’s Fees
Wright acknowledges that his claims for punitive damages and attorney’s fees must fail if his substantive claims are dismissed.
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his substantive claims, we also affirm its dismissal of his claims for punitive damages and attorney’s fees.
See generally Mann v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1304–05 (11th Cir. 2009).
III. Sanctions
A. Wright’s Motion for Sanctions
Wright argues that we should strike certain language in Truist’s motion for sanctions for being ad hominem and requests sanctions for Truist’s decision to include that language in its motion.
In particular, he contends that it was inappropriate for Truist to mention that Nathan had been sanctioned by this Court for a frivolous appeal or that Truist had obtained a multi-million-dollar judgment against Nathan.
Truist’s motion for sanctions was based, in part, on 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
To prevail on its claim for sanctions under § 1927, Truist was required to “show subjective bad-faith.” Hyde v. Irish, 962 F.3d 1306, 1310 (11th Cir. 2020).
“This standard can be met either (1) with direct evidence of the attorney’s subjective bad faith or (2) with evidence of conduct so egregious that it could only be committed in bad faith.” Id. (quotation omitted);
See Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny’s, Inc., 500 F.3d 1230, 1242 (11th Cir. 2007) (“A determination of bad faith is warranted where an attorney knowingly or recklessly pursues a frivolous claim or engages in litigation tactics that needlessly obstruct the litigation of non-frivolous claims.” (quotation omitted)).
The facts that Nathan had been sanctioned by this Court for a frivolous appeal and that Truist had obtained a multi-million-dollar judgment against him are clearly relevant to whether Nathan “knowingly or recklessly pursue[d] a frivolous claim.” Amlong, 500 F.3d at 1242.
And because these facts were relevant to Truist’s claims, we decline to strike or seal Truist’s motion or the related filings.
See 11th Cir. R. 25-6 (suggesting that a paper filed with the court may contain arguably ad hominem language where it is “relevant, necessary, and appropriate”).
Because we conclude that it was not inappropriate for Truist to mention these facts, we deny Wright’s request for us to award sanctions.
To award sanctions under our inherent powers, we “must find that the lawyer’s conduct ‘constituted or was tantamount to bad faith.’” Thomas v. Tenneco Packaging Co., Inc., 293 F.3d 1306, 1320 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted).
In Thomas, we awarded sanctions where the lawyer made:
“(1) insulting remarks about opposing counsel’s physical traits and demeanor,
(2) comments that called into question opposing counsel’s fitness as a member of the bar,
(3) thinly veiled threats aimed at opposing counsel,
(4) a racial slur, and
(5) unsubstantiated claims that opposing counsel was a racist.”
Id. at 1323.
Unlike the lawyer in Thomas, Truist did not engage in conduct “tantamount to bad faith.”
As already discussed, Truist’s mention of the facts that Nathan had been sanctioned by this Court and that Truist had obtained a multi-million-dollar judgment against him was not inappropriate because it was relevant to Truist’s claims under § 1927.
11 Ordinarily, we do not consider an argument raised for the first time on reply.
Mamone V.United States, 559 F.3d 1209, 1210 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009).
But we will address Wright’s argument here to demonstrate that it is frivolous.
B. Truist’s Motion for Sanctions
Truist argues that Wright’s appeal is frivolous and requests that we award attorney’s fees and double costs under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.
Wright argues that his appeal is not frivolous—specifically, that “[t]he two enumerations of error in this case are essentially issues of first impression in this Court . . . and have not been fully addressed or settled by any Georgia Appellate Court.”
We may impose sanctions under Rule 38 against a party who “raises clearly frivolous claims in the face of established law and clear facts.”
Parker v. Am.Traffic Sols., Inc., 835 F.3d 1363, 1371 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted);
See Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1359 (11th Cir. 2018).
“[A] claim is clearly frivolous if it is utterly devoid of merit.”
Parker, 835 F.3d at 1371 (quotation omitted).
When determining whether to award sanctions, we may review the “continuous series of events . . . which gave rise to this appeal.”
Bonfiglio v. Nugent, 986 F.2d 1391, 1393 (11th Cir. 1993).
Wright filed a complaint containing at least four counts that were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, a conclusion that he does not challenge on appeal.
Then, on appeal, he raised two arguments that were directly foreclosed by precedent from the Eleventh Circuit and the Supreme Court of Georgia, and by the plain language of O.C.G.A. § 16-14-8 (2011).
See Bonfiglio, 986 F.2d at 1394 (awarding sanctions where the appellant “stubbornly filed [an] appeal in which he repeate[d] to this Court the utterly frivolous contentions he made in the district court”).
Finally, when Truist filed a motion for sanctions based on this conduct, Wright filed a meritless motion to strike and for sanctions.
Wright’s arguments on appeal were devoid of merit because Anthony I and Anthony II clearly establish that the notary public statutes do not create a private cause of action and because O.C.G.A. § 16-14-8 (2011) clearly establishes a five- year statute of limitations for Georgia RICO Act claims.
More egregiously, Wright did not even mention O.C.G.A. § 16-14-8 (2011)—the applicable statute of limitations, which the district court relied on to dismiss his Georgia RICO Act claim—in his opening brief.
Instead, he waited until his reply brief to argue that O.C.G.A. § 16-14-8 (2011) does not apply here because “[t]he word ‘notwithstanding’ does not mean that no other rule could apply.”
This argument is utterly devoid of merit and Wright has provided no non-frivolous argument why the Georgia RICO Act’s five-year statute of limitations does not bar his Georgia RICO Act claim.
Thus, as a sanction, we order Wright and his counsel to pay double the costs of this appeal, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees to Truist.
See Bonfiglio, 986 F.2d at 1394;
See Taiyo Corp. v. Sheraton Savannah Corp., 49 F.3d 1514, 1515 (11th Cir. 1995) (imposing joint and several liability for Rule 38 sanctions).
“We remand this case to the district court with instructions for it to calculate and assess the attorneys’ fees and costs that [Wright and his counsel are] to pay in connection with this appeal and to order that amount paid.” Bonfiglio, 986 F.2d at 1395.
IV. Conclusion
For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s decision and remand the case to the district court to assess attorney’s fees and costs.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
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.
The standard for recusal under section 455(a) is “`whether an objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt about the judge’s impartiality. Scienter is not required. https://t.co/AKxCQapikA
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) May 27, 2021
Appellate Circuit
Constance Daniels, Student of Hard Knocks, Admonished Florida Lawyer and Friend of The Eleventh Circuit
LIF cannot comprehend how the People of Florida and the United States of America are so accepting of Brazen Corruption.
LIF UPDATE
JUL 28, 2024
The case settles on remand from the 11th Circuit and Daniels signs a loan modification agreement with a commencement date of Jun 20, 2023 for a sum of $329k and a period of 144 months with a balloon payment of $267k due on maturity. Her property at 3927 Dunaire Dr, Valrico, FL 33596 is valued today at appx. $457k.
As an aside, admonished Florida lawyer Constance Daniels had around $400k worth of IRS Tax Liens released between 2023 and 2024 ($383k).
LIF UPDATE
OCT 26, 2022
Five months after the 11th Circuit saved a colleague and lawyer from foreclosure, the mandate issued (without en banc hearing) and as instructed (reversed and remanded) the lower court has reopened the case.
LIT will be tracking this case closely, stay tuned.
LIF COMMENTARY
The article below starts with Constance Daniels failure to pay for her law school tuition loan issued in 2003. She defaulted in 2005 per the complaint. The USA won a judgment of $164k+ in 2011.
In 2010, Wells Fargo commenced foreclosure proceedings in state court, Hillsborough County.
While all this was going on, Ms Daniels, a Republican, was attempting to become a State judge in 2014, which failed.
In late November of 2017 a settlement was reached, dismissing the Wells Fargo foreclosure complaint.
In 2017-2018, lawyer Daniels was failing to look after her client(s). Many moons later, in 2021, that would result in a slap on the wrist by the referee, Hon. Daniel D. Diskey for Fl. Bar.
Then we move onto the June 2018 complaint, filed by Daniels against the mortgage servicer. It was removed to the lower court in Middle District of Florida Federal Court.
The court, via one of the Moody clan of judges, sided with Select Portfolio Servicing, LLC and this formed the appeal which was decided this week by the 11th Circuit.
In Nov. 2020, Wells Fargo filed a renewed foreclosure complaint against Daniels and her homestead in State court. In Sept 2021, Wells Fargo voluntarily dismissed the case and terminated the lis pendens ‘due to loan modification’.
The issue for LIF in this case is quite clear. Who the 11th Circuit has chosen to upend it’s prior stance that mortgage servicers can do no wrong under the FDCPA, despite irrefutable facts confirming otherwise.
For example, LIF refers to the case we highlighted regarding a deficiency judgment (State case, March 2022):
“Florida Lawyer Stephanie Schneider Appeals a Mortgage Foreclosure Deficiency Judgment”
In that case, LIF investigated beyond the court opinions to discover the wife is a Florida Lawyer and her husband, Laurence Schneider is owner of S&A Capital, Inc., a mortgage investment company, has built a national portfolio of performing mortgages that have been written off by other financial institutions.
Our angst is clear. Lawyers are being treated preferentially by the courts over regular citizens and homeowners.
In the case of Daniels, whilst she may have legitimate arguments, there have been many citizens who have failed before her by the wordsmithing by the Federal and Appellate Court(s), which has refused to apply the correct legal interpretation of the FDCPA, or clarify the question(s) with the federal consumer agency, the CFPB.
Whilst LIF is unhappy with the anti-consumer watchdog, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) which is a revolving door for staff to leave the Bureau and go work for a creditor rights law firm without any restriction or time limit (non-compete), the Daniels case should have been referred to the CFPB for interpretation about the matters of ‘first impression’.
The Second Circuit recently did so for a RESPA question in Naimoli v Ocwen and we highlighted the case on our sister website, LawsInTexas.com (Laws In Texas). Instead of doing so in Daniels, there is a dissenting opinion by Judge Lagoa, who’s father in law is a senior judge in SD Florida (Paul C. Huck) and her hubby is a Jones Day Partner and apparently the leader of the Miami Chapter of the Federalist Society. Lagoa herself is a former Florida Supreme Court justice appointed by Gov DeSantis who ‘ensured he puts conservatives on the bench so that anyone coming to court knows how the court will rule’.
LIF anticipates the Daniels case will be subject to a rehearing petition and presented to the full en banc court for reconsideration. The opinion here is similar to the recent Newsom FDCPA opinion, which was too negative towards Wall St and the financial banking services community. As such, it was vacated by the en banc panel while they reconsider. The courts’ decision is currently pending.
In this case, there is still time for the 11th Circuit to correctly ask the CFPB to provide its opinion on the underlying facts raised on appeal and decided by the 3-panel.
However, what the judiciary won’t do is apply this retroactively to the thousands of cases which have been incorrectly tossed in the last 14 years, resulting in homeowners losing their homes to wrongful foreclosures.
United States v. Daniels (2011)
(8:11-cv-01058)
District Court, M.D. Florida
MAY 13, 2011 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAY 26, 2022
USA Motion for Summary Judgment with Exhibits, Doc. 13, Aug 17, 2011
ORDER granting Motion for summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $109,813.74,
together with accrued interest in the amount of $54,097.10 as of February 28, 2011,
plus interested at the rate of 8.25 percent per annum and a daily rate of $24.80, until the date of judgment;
for post-judgment interest, at the legal rate, from the entry of final judgment until the date of payment;
and for such other costs of litigation otherwise allowed by law.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 9/22/2011.
(SN) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Tampa)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:11-cv-01058-EAK-AEP
| USA v. Daniels Assigned to: Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich Referred to: Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli Demand: $164,000 Cause: 28:1345 Default of Student Loan |
Date Filed: 05/13/2011 Date Terminated: 09/22/2011 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 152 Contract: Recovery Student Loan Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff |
| Plaintiff | ||
| USA | represented by | I. Randall Gold US Attorney’s Office – FLM Suite 3200 400 N Tampa St Tampa, FL 33602-4798 813/274-6026 Fax: 813/274-6247 Email: FLUDocket.Mailbox@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| Constance Daniels | represented by | Constance Daniels PO Box 6219 Brandon, FL 33608 PRO SE |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 05/13/2011 | 1 | COMPLAINT against Constance Daniels filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(MRH) (Entered: 05/13/2011) |
| 05/13/2011 | 2 | Summons issued as to Constance Daniels. (MRH) (Entered: 05/13/2011) |
| 05/13/2011 | 3 | ORDER regulating the processing of civil recovery actions. Service must be perfected by 09/10/2011. Signed by Deputy Clerk on 5/13/2011. (MRH) (Entered: 05/13/2011) |
| 05/13/2011 | 4 | STANDING ORDER: Filing of documents that exceed twenty-five pages. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 7/15/08. (MRH) (Entered: 05/13/2011) |
| 05/19/2011 | 5 | NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 – track 1 (CLM) (Entered: 05/19/2011) |
| 05/20/2011 | 6 | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 3 ORDER regulating the processing of civil recovery actions by USA (Gold, I.) Modified on 5/20/2011 (MRH). (Entered: 05/20/2011) |
| 05/25/2011 | 7 | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by USA (Notice of Designation Under Local Rule 3.05) (Gold, I.) (Entered: 05/25/2011) |
| 07/06/2011 | 8 | RETURN of service executed on 7/5/11 (Marshal 285) by USA as to Constance Daniels. (MRH) (Entered: 07/06/2011) |
| 07/27/2011 | 9 | MOTION for default judgment against Constance Daniels by USA. (Gold, I.) Modified on 7/27/2011 (MRH). NOTE: TERMINATED. INCORRECT MOTION RELIEF. ATTORNEY NOTIFIED. ATTORNEY TO REFILE. (Entered: 07/27/2011) |
| 07/27/2011 | 10 | MOTION for entry of clerk’s default against Constance Daniels by USA. (Gold, I.) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli. (Entered: 07/27/2011) |
| 07/28/2011 | 11 | CLERK’S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Constance Daniels. (MRH) (Entered: 07/28/2011) |
| 07/29/2011 | 12 | ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Constance Daniels.(BES) (Entered: 07/29/2011) |
| 08/17/2011 | 13 | MOTION for summary judgment by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Gold, I.) (Entered: 08/17/2011) |
| 09/09/2011 | 14 | ENDORSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to Constance Daniels.. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on 8/17/11. The defendant had up to and including 9/3/11 to respond to the motion. To date no response has been filed. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the defendant has up to and including 9/19/11 in which to show cause why the pending motion should not be granted. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 9/9/2011. (SN) (Entered: 09/09/2011) |
| 09/22/2011 | 15 |
ORDER granting 13 Motion for summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $109,813.74, together with accrued interest in the amount of $54,097.10 as of February 28, 2011, plus interested at the rate of 8.25 percent per annum and a daily rate of $24.80, until the date of judgment; for post-judgment interest, at the legal rate, from the entry of final judgment until the date of payment; and for such other costs of litigation otherwise allowed by law. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 9/22/2011. (SN) (Entered: 09/22/2011) |
| 10/12/2011 | 16 | ABSTRACT of judgment as to Constance Daniels. (DMS) (Entered: 10/12/2011) |
Order GRANTING Summary Judgment for $164k Student Loan Debt, Doc. 15, Sep 22, 2011
Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
LIF’s Post Reverse and Remand from CA11 Update, July 28, 2024
The case would settle.
(8:18-cv-01652)
District Court, M.D. Florida
NOTICE of settlement Pending by Constance Daniels (Diamond, Kaelyn)
(Entered: 05/10/2023)
60-DAY ORDER OF DISMISSAL re 52 Notice of Pending Resolution. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 5/10/2023. (SMB)
(Entered: 05/10/2023)
| CLOSED,MEDIATION |
U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Tampa)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:18-cv-01652-JSM-CPT
| Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. Assigned to: Judge James S. Moody, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
Date Filed: 07/11/2018 Date Terminated: 05/10/2023 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 05/24/2022 | 32 | USCAS OPINION issued by court as to Appellant Constance Daniels. Decision: REVERSED and REMANDED as to 29 Notice of Appeal. EOD: 05/24/22; Mandate to issue at a later date. USCA number: 19-10204-GG. (AG) (Entered: 05/26/2022) |
| 08/31/2022 | 33 | USCA ORDER: Appellant’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees is TRANSFERRED to the district court for its consideration of whether Appellant is entitled to appellate attorney’s fees and the amount of appellate attorney’s fees to which Appellant is entitled, if any, as too 29 Notice of Appeal filed by Constance Daniels. EOD: 08/29/2022; USCA number: 19-10204-GG. (AG) (Entered: 08/31/2022) |
| 08/31/2022 | 34 | MOTION for Attorney Fees by Constance Daniels. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibits 1-4 to Declaration, # 4 Exhibit)(AG) (Filed in the 11th Circuit on 8/29/2022) Modified on 8/31/2022 (AG). (Entered: 08/31/2022) |
| 09/01/2022 | 35 | ENDORSED ORDER denying without prejudice 34 Motion for Attorney’s Fees. The record reflects that the Mandate from the Eleventh Circuit has not been issued. The Motion for Attorney’s Fees may be refiled after the mandate is issued and docketed. The Motion shall also be modified to comply with the Court’s local rules. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 9/1/2022. (JG) (Entered: 09/01/2022) |
| 10/26/2022 | 36 | MANDATE of USCA: REVERSED AND REMANDED as to 29 Notice of Appeal filed by Constance Daniels. Issued as Mandate: 10/26/22. USCA number: 19-10204-GG. (Attachments: # 1 Bill of Costs, # 2 USCA memo)(JNB) (Entered: 10/26/2022) |
| 10/26/2022 | 37 | ENDORSED ORDER: The Clerk is directed to reopen the case. The parties shall file a joint status report within fourteen days as to how they wish to proceed in light of the Eleventh Circuit’s Opinion. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 10/26/2022. (SMB) (Entered: 10/26/2022) |
| 11/03/2022 | 38 | NOTICE of Appearance by Gabriela N. Timis on behalf of Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (Timis, Gabriela) (Entered: 11/03/2022) |
| 11/09/2022 | 39 | STATUS report by Constance Daniels. (Diamond, Kaelyn) (Entered: 11/09/2022) |
| 11/09/2022 | 40 | CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (Diamond, Kaelyn) (Entered: 11/09/2022) |
| 11/09/2022 | 41 | MOTION for Attorney Fees as to Entitlement to Appellate Fees and Costs Only by Constance Daniels. (Diamond, Kaelyn) (Entered: 11/09/2022) |
| 11/09/2022 | 42 | ENDORSED ORDER: Defendant shall file its answer on or before November 18, 2022. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 11/9/2022. (SMB) (Entered: 11/09/2022) |
| 11/14/2022 | 43 | CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 5/26/2023; Dispositive motions due by 6/30/2023; Pretrial Conference set for TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2023, at 9:00 A.M. in Tampa Courtroom 17 before Judge James S. Moody Jr. Jury Trial set on the JANUARY 2024 trial term in Tampa Courtroom 17 before Judge James S. Moody Jr. Conduct mediation hearing by 6/16/2023. Lead counsel to coordinate dates. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 11/14/2022. (SMB) (Entered: 11/14/2022) |
| 11/18/2022 | 44 | ANSWER and affirmative defenses to 23 Amended Complaint by Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.(Kohn, Joseph) Modified text on 11/21/2022 (MCB). (Entered: 11/18/2022) |
| 11/23/2022 | 45 | RESPONSE in Opposition re 41 MOTION for Attorney Fees as to Entitlement to Appellate Fees and Costs Only filed by Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (Kohn, Joseph) Modified text on 11/28/2022 (SET). (Entered: 11/23/2022) |
| 12/12/2022 | 46 | ENDORSED ORDER denying without prejudice as premature 41 Motion for Attorney Fees for the reasons stated in the Response 45. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 12/12/2022. (JG) (Entered: 12/12/2022) |
| 01/04/2023 | 47 | NOTICE of mediation conference/hearing to be held on June 14, 2023 at 1:30 P.M. before Gregory Holder. (Diamond, Kaelyn) (Entered: 01/04/2023) |
| 01/04/2023 | 48 | ORDER appointing Gregory P. Holder, Esq. as mediator in this action. Mediation is scheduled for June 14, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 1/4/2023. (SMB) (Entered: 01/04/2023) |
| 03/30/2023 | 49 | STIPULATION /Joint Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by Constance Daniels. (Diamond, Kaelyn) (Entered: 03/30/2023) |
| 03/31/2023 | 50 | ENDORSED ORDER granting in part 49 Joint Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines filed by Constance Daniels. The pretrial conference and trial dates remain unchanged. No further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of good cause. The Court will enter an amended scheduling order separately. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 3/31/2023. (SMB) (Entered: 03/31/2023) |
| 03/31/2023 | 51 | CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 7/25/2023; Dispositive motions due by 8/29/2023; Pretrial Conference set for TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2023, at 9:00 A.M. in Tampa Courtroom 17 before Judge James S. Moody Jr. JURY TRIAL is set on the JANUARY 2024 trial term in Tampa Courtroom 17 before Judge James S. Moody Jr. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 3/31/2023. (SMB) (Entered: 03/31/2023) |
| 05/10/2023 | 52 | NOTICE of settlement Pending by Constance Daniels (Diamond, Kaelyn) (Entered: 05/10/2023) |
| 05/10/2023 | 53 | 60-DAY ORDER OF DISMISSAL re 52 Notice of Pending Resolution. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 5/10/2023. (SMB) (Entered: 05/10/2023) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 07/28/2024 18:04:57 |
JUDGE ESKRIDGE
“ORDER re: By email to the Case Manager, the parties have provided notice of settlement of their dispute.”FIFTH CIRCUIT
“By informing the court that the case had settled, the plaintiff did not “instigate dismissal.” https://t.co/zq7t3oR77E pic.twitter.com/t5p1Tb5p80— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) July 24, 2024
Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
(2018-Present)
(8:18-cv-01652)
District Court, M.D. Florida
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 24) and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (Dkt. 27).
The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that Defendant’s motion should be granted.
Specifically, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint will be dismissed with prejudice because any further amendment is futile.
BACKGROUND
As the Court explained in its prior Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss, (see Dkt. 22), Plaintiff Constance Daniels initially filed suit in Florida state court against Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”) alleging three Florida claims, which included a claim under Florida’s civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act.
On July 10, 2018, SPS removed the case to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction.
On August 6, 2018, SPS moved to dismiss the entire complaint.
In relevant part, SPS argued that the complaint failed to allege any of the elements of a RICO claim.
On August 27, 2018, Daniels filed an amended complaint, which mooted SPS’s motion to dismiss.
Daniels’ amended complaint alleged two claims: a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and a claim under the Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act (“FCCPA”).
Both claims relied on the same allegations.
To summarize, Daniels alleged that SPS had “improperly servic[ed]” her mortgage loan “in reckless disregard” of her consumer rights. (Dkt. 12).
The amended complaint did not attach any mortgage statements.
SPS moved to dismiss Daniels’ amended complaint based on her failure to allege that SPS ever attempted to collect the mortgage balance.
The Court granted SPS’s motion.
The Court noted that the amended complaint did not identify or attach any communication from SPS to Daniels.
The Court also surmised that the dispute was more akin to a dispute about an improper accounting of Daniels’ mortgage.
The Court dismissed the FDCPA and FCCPA claims and provided Daniels a final opportunity to amend her complaint.
Daniels filed a second amended complaint.
The allegations are largely unchanged.
But, significantly, Daniels attaches multiple monthly mortgage statements that SPS sent to her.
She now claims that these mortgage statements constitute debt collection activity under the FDCPA and FCCPA.
SPS’s motion to dismiss argues that the monthly mortgage statements comply with Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act (the “TILA”)—they were not communications in connection with the collection of a debt—and therefore do not constitute debt collection activity under the FDCPA and FCCPA.
As explained further below, the Court agrees with SPS’s position based on the Court’s detailed review of the monthly mortgage statements.
Therefore, the second amended complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a court to dismiss a complaint when it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
When reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all factual allegations contained in the complaint as true.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal citation omitted).
It must also construe those factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Hunt v. Aimco Properties, L.P., 814 F.3d 1213, 1221 (11th Cir. 2016) (internal citation omitted).
To withstand a motion to dismiss, the complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
A claim has facial plausibility “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Pleadings that offer only “labels and conclusions,” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” will not do.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
DISCUSSION
The FDCPA and FCCPA prohibit debt collectors from using a “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.”
See e.g. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (emphasis added);
Fla. Stat. § 559.72 (“In collecting debts, no person shall . . .”) (emphasis added).
It is axiomatic then that the “challenged conduct is related to debt collection” to state a claim under either statute.
Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams, LLP, 678 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2012);
see also Garrison v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 3d 1282, 1286 (M.D. Fla. 2017) (“the FCCPA is a Florida state analogue to the federal FDCPA.”) (internal citations omitted).
“[T]he Eleventh Circuit has not established a bright-line rule” as to what qualifies as “in connection with the collection of any debt.”
Dyer v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 108 F. Supp. 3d 1278, 1280 (M.D. Fla. 2015).
“As a general principle, the absence of a demand for payment is not dispositive,” and courts should “instead consider whether the overall communication was intended to induce the debtor to settle the debt.”
Wood v. Citibank, N.A., No. 8:14-cv-2819-T-27EAJ, 2015 WL 3561494, at *3 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2015) (citations omitted).
The second amended complaint attaches multiple monthly mortgage statements.1
Because the communications at issue here are all monthly mortgage statements, a discussion of the TILA is necessary.
The TILA requires SPS, a servicer, to send monthly mortgage statements.
12 C.F.R. § 1026.41. Specifically, 12 C.F.R. § 1026.41(d) requires that servicers provide debtors with detailed monthly mortgage statements containing, among other things: the “amounts due;” the “payment due date;” “the amount of any late payment fee, and the date that fee will be imposed if payment has not been received;” “an explanation of amount due, including a breakdown showing how much, if any, will be applied to principal, interest, and escrow and, if a mortgage loan has multiple payment options, a breakdown of each of the payment options;” “any payment amount past due;” a breakdown of “the total of all payments received since the last statement” and “since the beginning of the current calendar year;” “a list of all transaction activity that occurred since the last statement;” “partial payment information;” “contact information;” and detailed “account information” and “delinquency information.”
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) has issued a bulletin providing that a
“servicer acting as a debt collector would not be liable under the FDCPA for complying with [monthly mortgage statement] requirements.”
Implementation Guidance for Certain Mortgage Servicing Rules, 10152013 CFPB GUIDANCE, 2013 WL 9001249 (C.F.P.B. Oct. 15, 2013).
Courts have largely followed this guidance.
See, e.g., Jones v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 18-cv-20389, 2018 WL 2316636, at *3 (S.D. Fla. May 2, 2018) (citing 12 C.F.R. § 1026.41(d));
Brown v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 16-62999-CIV, 2017 WL 1157253 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2017) (noting the guidance and finding that monthly mortgage statements in compliance with the TILA were not debt collection).
The monthly mortgage statements at issue here were in conformity with the TILA requirements.
Moreover, the subject statements were substantially similar to model form H-30(B) provided by Appendix X to Part 1026 of TILA Regulation Z.
See also Jones, 2018 WL 2316636, at *4 (noting the similarities between a monthly mortgage statement and the model form in concluding no debt collection).
Although the monthly mortgage statements may not be identical to model form H-30(B), the differences are not significant deviations.
Notably, the plaintiff in Brown brought a nearly identical lawsuit against SPS.
The court explained in detail why the plaintiff was unable to state a claim under the FDCPA and FCCPA because the monthly mortgage statement was required to be sent pursuant to the TILA.
The complaint in Brown was dismissed with prejudice because “amendment would be futile” given that the basis for the claims was a monthly mortgage statement that was not actionable as a matter of law.
See 2017 WL 1157253, at *2-*4.
Also, the Jones court discussed in detail the numerous prior decisions addressing this issue, including multiple cases from this district that have held that monthly mortgage statements
“are almost categorically not debt collection communications under the FDCPA.”
2018 WL 2316636, at *5 (citing cases).
The particular monthly mortgage statements before the court in Jones were also sent by SPS and were substantively identical to the statements at issue in this case and in Brown.
Most recently, in Mills v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 18-cv-61012- BLOOM/Valle, 2018 WL 5113001 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2018), the court “agree[d] with the reasoning in Jones and [concluded] that the Mortgage Statements at issue [were] not communications in connection with a collection of a debt.” Id. at *2.
In conclusion, the substance of the monthly mortgage statements at issue in this case is substantially similar to model form H-30(B).
Any minor discrepancies in the language—when taken in the context of the document as an otherwise carbon copy of form H-30(B)—do not take the statements out of the realm of a monthly mortgage statement and into the realm of debt collection communications.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt.
24) is granted.
2. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and terminate any pending motions as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on December 18, 2018.
Copies furnished to: Counsel/Parties of Record
Judge Bert Jordan’s “Reputation” Warning to New Florida Lawyers
Constance Daniels Admonished by the Florida Bar (2021)
Constance Daniels, P.O. Box 6219, Brandon, admonishment in writing and directed to attend Ethics School effective immediately following a November 24 court order.
(Admitted to practice: 1995)
Daniels failed to act with reasonable diligence and failed to communicate with her client in connection with a dissolution of marriage action.
Daniels also failed to timely respond to the Bar’s formal complaint.
Constance Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2022)
11th Cir., Published Opinion
(19-10204, May 24, 2022)
“A matter of first impression” 14 Years after the great recession and greatest theft of citizens homes in the history of the United States.
It’s quite incredulous how the 11th Circuit selects a Sanctioned Fl. Republican Lawyer, a failed judicial candidate and one who is facing foreclosure, for this ‘landmark’ published opinion in 2022.
Panel Author, Judge Bert Jordan, joined by Judge Brasher with a dissenting opinion by Judge Babs Lagoa
Selective Justice = Ochlocracy and Corruption.
WHY IS THERE NO CHARGES FOR LAWYERS STEALIN’ MILLIONS? https://t.co/gkMkVMboYZ@USAO_NJ @USAO_MDFL @SDFLnews @CityBocaRaton @AGAshleyMoody @flcourts @TheFlaBar @FLBarPresident @SWFLCourts @WSJ @nytimes @reason @MotherJones @ABC— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) May 26, 2022
11th Circuit revives FDCPA lawsuit over mortgage statement language
How Westlaw is Summarizing the Latest Eleventh Circuit Opinion
(May 26, 2022)
Resolving an issue of first impression, a divided federal appeals panel has held that mortgage servicers can be liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for inaccuracies in monthly mortgage statements that contain additional debt-collection language.
Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., No. 19-10204, (11th Cir. May 24, 2022).
In a 2-1 decision, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 24 reinstated Constance Daniels’ lawsuit against Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., in which she alleges the company used faulty mortgage statements to try to collect payments she did not owe.
Writing for the panel majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Adalberto J. Jordan acknowledged that Select Portfolio was required to issue the mortgage statements under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1638.
However, the mortgage statements fell within the scope of the FDCPA’s prohibition on false or misleading representations, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692e, because they included additional debt-collection language — “this is an attempt to collect a debt” — the opinion said.
Judge Jordan reasoned that “in determining whether a communication is in connection with the collection of a debt, what could be more relevant than a statement in the communication than ‘this is an attempt to collect a debt’?”
U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagao dissented, saying the majority treated the language like “magic words” that could convert an otherwise routine mortgage statement into a communication covered by the FDCPA.
Judge Lagoa also argued that the decision created a circuit split, although the panel majority insisted that the facts of Daniels’ case distinguished it from others in which federal circuit courts seemed to reach a contrary result.
District Court tosses FDCPA claims
Daniels sued Select Portfolio in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in July 2018.
According to the suit, Daniels had prevailed in a state court foreclosure action brought by lender Wells Fargo in 2015, with the judge sanctioning Wells Fargo and enforcing an earlier loan modification agreement between the parties.
But Daniels’ mortgage servicer, Select Portfolio, later issued several monthly mortgage statements misstating the principal balance and amount due, and falsely claiming that her loan was in arrears, the suit says.
At least three of the mortgage statements included the sentence, “This is an attempt to collect a debt,” according to the suit.
Daniels accuses Select Portfolio of using false or misleading representations in connection with the collection of a debt, in violation of the FDCA and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 559.72.
Select Portfolio moved to dismiss, saying Daniels was attempting hold it liable for issuing mortgage statements that are required under the Truth in Lending Act.
U.S. District Judge James S. Moody Jr. agreed and dismissed the suit in December 2018. Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servs. Inc., No. 18-cv-1652, (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2018).
Judge Moody said that any discrepancies in language between Select Portfolio’s monthly statements and what is required under TILA “do not take the statements out of the realm of a monthly mortgage statement and into the realm of debt collection communications.”
On appeal, Daniels argued that compliance with TILA does not make a mortgage servicer immune from suit under the FDCPA and, even if it did, the monthly statements at issue included language beyond what is necessary under TILA.
Kaelyn S. Diamond and Michael A. Ziegler of the Law Office of Michael A. Ziegler represented Daniels.
Benjamin B. Brown and Joseph T. Kohn of Quarles & Brady LLP represented Select Portfolio.
By Dave Embree
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
Deutsche Bank and Nationstar Watch as 11th Circuit Discharge the Shotgun Despite Hunt’s Pleadings
There can be no doubt that this is a frivolous appeal and we would not hesitate to order sanctions if appellant had been represented by counsel.
Hunt v. Nationstar Mortg., No. 21-10398
(11th Cir. May 27, 2022)
MAY 27, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAY 30, 2022
Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Christopher M. Hunt, Sr., proceeding pro se, appeals following the district court’s dismissal of his civil complaint arising out of his 2006 purchase of residential property located in Atlanta, Georgia (the “Property”).
Hunt purchased the Property using proceeds from a loan that he eventually defaulted on, which prompted Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (“Nationstar”), then servicer of the loan, to seek a non-judicial foreclosure on the Property.
After filing or being named in a variety of related lawsuits,1 Hunt filed the instant pro se complaint in Georgia state court in June 2020 and named as defendants Nationstar, the Deutsche Bank National Trust
1 See, g., Hunt v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 684 F. App’x 938 (11th Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (“Hunt I”);
[MARCUS, ROSENBAUM AND ANDERSON]
Hunt v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 779 F. App’x 669 (11th Cir. 2019) (unpublished);
[PRYOR,W., GRANT AND ANDERSON]
Hunt v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 782 F. App’x 762 (11th Cir. 2019) (unpublished);
[PRYOR,W., GRANT AND ANDERSON]
Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Am., as Tr. for Fifteen Piedmont Ctr. v. Hunt, 783 F. App’x 998 (11th Cir. 2019) (unpublished).
[TJOFLAT, JORDAN AND NEWSOM]
Companies (“Deutsche Bank”), and Jay Bray, the CEO of Nationstar.
He alleged that they had committed, inter alia, mortgage fraud and wrongful foreclosure in violation of federal laws, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act.2
The district court denied a variety of preliminary motions filed by Hunt;
dismissed, without prejudice, the complaint as to defendant Bray for failure to effect proper service;
and
dismissed, with prejudice, the complaint as to Deutsche Bank and Nationstar, because it was a “shotgun” pleading, was barred by res judicata, and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.3
After thorough review, we affirm.
I.
Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction, including removal jurisdiction, is a question of law that we review de novo.
See McGee v. Sentinel Offender Servs., LLC, 719 F.3d 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2013).
We also review de novo a denial of a motion to
2 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745 (hereinafter “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Con- sumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010) (hereinafter “Dodd-Frank Act”).
3 Hunt also named Christian Sewing, the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of Deutsche Bank, as a defendant, but he later voluntarily dismissed him.
And after filing the complaint, Hunt sought to add yet another defendant, the Albertelli Law Firm (“Albertelli Law”).
Bray, Sewing and Albertelli Law have not filed any briefs on appeal.
remand to state court. Conn.
State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, 591 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2009).
A district court’s decision regarding the indispensability of a party is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Rigel Ships Agencies, Inc., 432 F.3d 1282, 1291 (11th Cir. 2005).
We will disturb a district court’s refusal to change venue only for a clear abuse of discretion.
Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F.3d 253, 255 (11th Cir. 1996).
We also review the district court’s denial of a motion for recusal for abuse of discretion.
Jenkins v. Anton, 922 F.3d 1257, 1271 (11th Cir. 2019).
We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, under Rule 12(b)(5), by applying a de novo standard to questions of law, and a clear error standard to the court’s findings of fact.
Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).
But when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations in a report and recommendation, he “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
Under the circumstances, we review a claim on appeal only “for plain error,” if “necessary in the interests of justice.” Id.
We review the dismissal of a “shotgun” pleading under Rule 8 for abuse of discretion.
Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2018).
When appropriate, we will review a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo.
Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1056–57 (11th Cir. 2007).
We will also review a dismissal
REWIND 2022-2008 IS STILL HAPPENIN’ – FREQUENTLY – THE GREATEST THEFT OF HOMES IN HISTORY
Deutsche Bank /PHH Ocwen case frozen in time after LIT article was published, highlighting the homeowner’s plea to jurisdiction. https://t.co/IsKUrHZ84n @dwnews @ewarren @RandPaul #txlege— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) May 29, 2022
based on res judicata de novo.
Jang v. United Techs. Corp., 206 F.3d 1147, 1149 (11th Cir. 2000).
We review de novo a district court’s conclusions on collateral estoppel, but review its legal conclusion that an issue was actually litigated in a prior action for clear error.
Richardson v. Miller, 101 F.3d 665, 667–68 (11th Cir. 1996).
While pro se pleadings are liberally construed, issues not briefed on appeal are normally forfeited and we will generally not consider them.
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
An appellant can abandon a claim by:
(1) making only passing reference to it;
(2) raising it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and authority;
(3) referring to it only in the “statement of the case” or “summary of the argument”;
or
(4) referring to the issue as mere background to the appellant’s main arguments.
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681– 82 (11th Cir. 2014).
In addition, if a district court’s order rested on two or more independent, alternative grounds, the appellant must challenge all of the grounds to succeed on appeal.
See id. at 680.
When an appellant fails to challenge on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment, he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.
See id.
II.
Liberally construed, Hunt’s brief on appeal seeks to challenge the district court’s decisions:
(1) denying remand of his case to state court
and
denying his request to file an amended complaint adding another defendant, Albertelli Law;
(2) denying his request
to transfer the case;
(3) denying his request to disqualify the judge;
(4) dismissing, without prejudice, his complaint as to defendant Bray for failure to effect proper service;
and
(5) dismissing his complaint, with prejudice, as to Deutsche Bank and Nationstar.
To be sure, Hunt’s arguments about these decisions by the district court are not clearly stated.
But even if we were to assume that he has preserved his arguments on appeal, they fail on the merits.
First, we are unpersuaded by Hunt’s arguments that the district court should have allowed him to file an amended complaint to add another party to the suit, which would have deprived the federal court of jurisdiction, and should have remanded the case to state court.
Federal courts have diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
A corporation is a citizen of every state where it was incorporated and the one state in which it has its principal place of business.
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 133, 137 (2014); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
A defendant may remove any civil action brought in a state court to a federal district court that has original jurisdiction over the action.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
The removing party bears the burden of proving that removal jurisdiction exists.
McGee, 719 F.3d at 1241.
Here, the district court did not err in denying Hunt’s motion to remand. As we’ve held in a previous appeal, his motion was based on his belated and fraudulent attempts to join Albertelli Law, in an effort to defeat the district court’s diversity jurisdiction.
See Hunt I, 684 F. App’x. at 942-44.
However, Hunt asserted federal
Post Edited: Homeowner Announces Victory in Florida Against Wrongful Foreclosure, Quietly Affirmed on Appeal https://t.co/hXyc88iJ2o
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) January 29, 2022
claims in his complaint, so the district court had jurisdiction in any event.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Accordingly, the district court correctly denied Hunt’s requests to remand the case and acted within its discretion to deny joinder.
Rigel Ships Agencies, Inc., 432 F.3d at 1291.
We also find no merit to Hunt’s claims that the district court should have transferred venue of his lawsuit.
A district court may transfer a civil action to any other district or division where it may have been brought “for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice.”
Robinson, 74 F.3d at 260 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)).
But in this case, the district court did not err because Hunt did not provide any cognizable reason for a transfer.
It appears that Hunt’s transfer request was based on his belief that case law in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia would be more favorable to him – which is not a legitimate reason for transfer.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Similarly, we reject Hunt’s argument that the district court judge should have recused himself.
A judge must sua sponte recuse himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or “
28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1).
“The test is whether an objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt about the judge’s impartiality.”
Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th Cir. 1988).
“Ordinarily, a judge’s rulings in the same or a related case may not serve as
the basis for a recusal motion.”
McWhorter v. City of Birmingham, 906 F.2d 674, 678 (11th Cir. 1990).
“The judge’s bias must be personal and extrajudicial; it must derive from something other than that which the judge learned by participating in the case.”
Id.
“The exception to this rule is when a judge’s remarks in a judicial context demonstrate such pervasive bias and prejudice that it constitutes bias against a party. Mere friction . . . however, is not enough to demonstrate pervasive bias.”
Thomas v. Tenneco Packaging Co., 293 F.3d 1306, 1329 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks omitted).
As the record before us makes clear, no “objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying” these circumstances “would entertain a significant doubt about the judge’s impartiality.”
Parker, 855 F.2d at 1524.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hunt’s request for recusal or disqualification.
Nor do we find any merit to Hunt’s argument that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint against defendant Bray for lack of proper service.
When a federal court is considering the sufficiency of process after removal, it does so by looking to the state law governing process.
See Usatorres v. Marina Mercante Nicaraguenses, S.A., 768 F.2d 1285, 1286 n.1 (11th Cir. 1985).
Georgia law provides that service made “outside the state” of Georgia is to be done “in the same manner as service is made within the state.”
O.C.G.A. § 9-10-94.
Under Georgia law, service on natural persons is to be made “personally, or by leaving copies thereof at the defendant’s dwelling house or usual place of abode with some
person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an agent authorized . . . to receive service of process.”
O.C.G.A. § 9-11-4(e)(7).
Notably, Hunt does not dispute these proposed findings set forth by the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), that Hunt:
(1) mailed service to Bray;
and
(2) completed “corporate service” on Deutsche Bank, which Hunt asserted was also effective to serve Bray.
11th Cir. R. 3-1.
But, as the district court determined, Georgia law applied here and required personal service in these circumstances.
Albra, 490 F.3d at 829; O.C.G.A. § 9-11-4(e)(7).
Bray therefore was not properly served under Georgia law, and, for that reason, the district court did not err in dis- missing Hunt’s suit without prejudice as to Bray.
Finally, we find no error in the district court’s denial of injunctive relief and its dismissal of Hunt’s complaint against the two remaining defendants, Nationstar and Deutsche Bank.
A district court has the inherent authority to control its docket and ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits, which includes the ability to dismiss a complaint on “shotgun” pleading grounds.
Shabanets, 878 F.3d at 1295.
We have described four types of “shotgun” com- plaints:
(1) those containing multiple counts where each count adopts all allegations of all preceding counts;
(2) those replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action;
(3) those that do not separate each cause of action or claim for relief into different counts;
and
(4) those asserting multiple claims against multiple defendants without
specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is brought against.
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015).
“Shotgun” pleadings violate Rule 8, which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), by failing to, in one degree or another, give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.
Shabanets, 878 F.3d at 1294–96.
We generally require district courts to allow a litigant at least one chance to remedy any deficiencies before dismissing the complaint with prejudice, where a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim.
See id.; Silberman v. Miami Dade Transit, 927 F.3d 1123, 1132 (11th Cir. 2019).
But it need not grant leave to amend the complaint when further amendment would be futile.
Silberman, 927 F.3d at 1133.
Under federal law, res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars a subsequent action if
“(1) the prior decision was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(2) there was a final judgment on the merits;
(3) the parties were identical in both suits;
and
(4) the prior and present causes of action are the same.”
Jang, 206 F.3d at 1148– 49 & n.1 (quotation marks omitted).
We have held that “if a case arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts, or is based upon the same factual predicate, as a former action, the two cases are really the same ‘claim’ or ‘cause of action’ for purposes of res judicata.”
Baloco v. Drummond Co., Inc., 767 F.3d 1229, 1247 (11th
Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted and alterations adopted).
“In addition, res judicata applies not only to the precise legal theory presented in the prior case, but to all legal theories and claims arising out of the nucleus of operative fact” that could have been raised in the prior case.
Id. (quotation marks omitted and alterations adopted).
Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, “refers to the effect of a judgment in foreclosing relitigation of a matter that has been litigated and decided.”
Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 77 n.1 (1984).
Thus, “collateral estoppel is appropriate only when the identical issue has been fully litigated in a prior case.”
In re McWhorter, 887 F.2d 1564, 1567 (11th Cir. 1989) (quotation marks omitted).
“The party seeking to invoke collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the necessary elements have been satisfied.”
Id. at 1566.
“[C]hanges in the law after a final judgment [generally] do not prevent the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel, even though the grounds on which the decision was based [may be] subsequently overruled.”
Precision Air Parts, Inc. v. Avco Corp., 736 F.2d 1499, 1503 (11th Cir. 1984).
To safeguard investors in public companies and restore trust in the financial markets, Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 116 Stat. 745.
See S. Rep. No. 107-146, pp. 2–11 (2002).
The Act contains several provisions, including a whistleblower protection provision which prohibits a publicly traded company or its officers from discharging an “employee” for providing information to a supervisory authority about conduct that the employee
“reasonably believes” constitutes a violation of federal laws against mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, any SEC rule or regulation, or any provision of federal law relating to fraud against shareholders.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1).
The Dodd-Frank Act whistleblower provision provides protection to individuals who provide “information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the” Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(a)(6).
Thus, “[t]o sue under Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision, a person must first provide information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the [SEC].”
Dig. Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 138 S. Ct. 767, 772–73 (2018) (quotation marks omitted and alterations adopted).
In his brief on appeal, Hunt does not expressly address the lower court’s “shotgun” pleading determination, and, as a result, the district court’s dismissal of the complaint is due to be affirmed.
Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681–82.
But in any event, the district court did not err in finding that his complaint was a “shotgun” pleading.
As the record reflects, the complaint consisted of three numbered paragraphs that spanned paragraphs and pages; failed to isolate claims by defendants;
and largely failed to discuss any facts — thereby falling into several of our identified categories of prohibited “shotgun” pleadings.
Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321-23.
The district court also was correct that amendment would have been futile.
For one, res judicata and collateral estoppel barred Hunt’s claims for breach of contract and fraud, since Hunt sued the same parties for the same alleged breach of contract and fraud in several prior cases.
See, e.g., Hunt I, 684 F. App’x at 944.4
These decisions were final judgments and were “rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction,” “on the merits,” against the same parties, and “the prior and present causes of action [were] the same.”
Jang, 206 F.3d at 1149.
Moreover, even if some of Hunt’s claims had not been explicitly presented in any of his prior cases, they would still be barred by res judicata because every claim arose from the same facts as each of his prior cases, and he could have raised them in any of the prior proceedings.
Baloco, 767 F.3d at 1247.
Also, despite Hunt’s arguments, there have been no “changes in the law” that would “prevent the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel” in this case.
Precision Air Parts, 736 F.2d at 1503.
In addition, Hunt’s claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Dodd-Frank Act were futile because they fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
As the record reflects, Hunt did not allege that he was an “employee” under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, nor that he “provide[d] information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the [SEC]” as required under the Dodd-Frank Act.
4 To the extent that Hunt challenges the district court’s decisions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), we conclude that he has not identified any “extraordinary circumstances” entitling him to relief, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in this respect.
Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307, 1316 (11th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks omitted).
Somers, 138 S. Ct. at 772–74.
Accordingly, Hunt did not state a cause of action under these statutes, and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.5
5 All of Hunt’s pending motions, which he filed after we imposed a filing restriction on him, are DENIED to the extent they request any relief.
For their part, Nationstar and Deutsche Bank have filed renewed motions for sanctions, requesting monetary sanctions against Hunt for his numerous motions before this Court under 11th Cir. R. 27-4.
Hunt is pro se and we DENY the motions for sanctions at this time.
See Woods v. I.R.S., 3 F.3d 403, 404 (11th Cir. 1993)
(“There can be no doubt that this is a frivolous appeal and we would not hesitate to order sanctions if appellant had been represented by counsel. However, since this suit was filed pro se, we conclude that sanctions would be inappropriate.”).
Although we are reluctant to impose sanctions on pro se appellants, we warn Hunt that our Court has imposed sanctions in circumstances like these, even for pro se litigants, and he is strongly cautioned against bringing any further frivolous motions or claims.
See Ricket v. United States, 773 F.2d 1214, 1216 (11th Cir. 1985)
(imposing sanctions on a pro se appellant who had been warned by the district court that the issues on appeal were frivolous).
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
God Goes in Front of Me and Makes the Crooked Straight and I Get to Keep My Pension
Ex-Inmate and Former Congresswoman Corrine Brown is Confident of Her Plea Deal Keepin’ Her out of Jail and Ending Her Criminal Case.
Former congresswoman Corrine Brown Update
JUL 28, 2024
On May 17, 2022, Corrine Brown pleaded guilty on the charges to avoid a second trial.
Former Congresswoman Brown was sentenced to the time that she had already served in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, specifically two years, eight months, and nine days.
Brown was also ordered to pay $62,650.99 in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service.
As of June 2024, the former member of Congress from Northeast Florida is looking for an interest-free payment plan for her federal debt. If accepted by the court, it sets the stage for Brown on the installment plan past her 82nd birthday.
Former congresswoman Corrine Brown to take plea deal
Brown faced retrial this fall on federal fraud charges
May 17, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: May 17, 2022
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – Former congresswoman Corrine Brown is set to change her plea Wednesday in a federal case that involves charges of fraud and conspiracy, avoiding a retrial that was scheduled to take place this fall.
Tuesday morning, News4JAX reporter Jim Piggott spoke with Corrine Brown by phone. She said everything will come out in court tomorrow.
“I want you to know, God has been good to me,”
Brown said.
“I just talked to my pastor and I know that He goes in front of me and make the crooked straight. That’s all I can tell you, He’s good.”
Former U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown is set to change her plea Wednesday in a federal case that involves charges of fraud and conspiracy, avoiding a retrial that was scheduled to take place this fall.
Brown was indicted in 2016 on charges that included conspiracy, wire fraud, and tax fraud, on accusations that she used contributions to the One Door for Education charity for personal expenses.
Brown was convicted on some of the charges in May 2017, and began a five-year prison sentence in January 2018. Brown was released in April 2020, due to coronavirus concerns.
Following her conviction, Brown appealed the guilty verdict, arguing the trial judge wasn’t justified in replacing a juror who said the Holy Spirit told him Brown was not guilty.
A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals initially upheld Brown’s conviction.
Brown’s attorneys then asked for a rehearing before the full 11th Circuit, known as an “en banc” hearing. In May 2021, the appellate court reversed the conviction with a 7-4 decision, sending the case back to the district court for a potential retrial.
In October 2021, we learned that prosecutors planned to re-try Brown on the felony counts she faced in her 2017 trial.
At the time, we learned prosecutors had already extended her a plea deal to avoid being retried and the possibility of a return to prison, an offer she rejected at the time.
Following the appointment of a new defense team, Brown’s retrial was set to take place in September of 2022.
News4JAX Jim Piggott spoke with attorney Curtis Fallgatter,
“(Jim) Are you surprised at all?
(Curtis) A little bit, but not terribly because of the age of the case, the complexity of the case, the number of issues, reversal on appeal issues about a retrial, can I get a conviction, the age of Brown.”
The court document indicating that Brown will be changing her plea does not indicate what charges she may be pleading guilty to, or what sentence could potentially be imposed.
Fallgatter doesn’t believe Brown will serve any additional time.
He said she would not agree to that, and the agreement should be an end to the case.
Brown is getting her pension, and that likely will not change.
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.
Mortgage Servicer PHH Ocwen: Scammin’ Homeowners Since 2008, with Government and Judicial Approval
A Message for Felon Francis Santa: We Cannot Be Bribed. Stop the Harassment
August 2022 List of Thievin’ and Lyin’ Attorneys In the State of Florida
Where Is He Now? Fraudster Francis Santa Was Sentenced to 88 Months for Conspiracy
Two Florida Foreclosure Lawyers Matt Fuqua and Clay Milton Commit the Most Abhorrent Act
Who is Catalina Azuero, a Liar Lawyer at Goodwin Procter LLP?
Disgraced and Disbarred: Why Are Former Judges and Lawyers Working as Mediators in Our Courts?
Lawyer Calvin Curtis Stole Over $13M Sentenced to 8 Years in Jail. He Wants a Favor from The Florida Bar.
April 2022 Foreclosure Stay Raises Serious Questions as to ‘Divorce Status’ Of Tim and Jennifer Howard
-
Editors Choice2 years agoWhere Is He Now? Fraudster Francis Santa Was Sentenced to 88 Months for Conspiracy
-
Bankruptcy5 years agoTwo Florida Foreclosure Lawyers Matt Fuqua and Clay Milton Commit the Most Abhorrent Act
-
Acceleration4 years agoWho is Catalina Azuero, a Liar Lawyer at Goodwin Procter LLP?
-
Editors Choice3 years agoJudge Barbara Hobbs Son is Arrested for Attempted Murder. Her ExtraJudicial Intervention is Granted
-
Editors Choice2 years agoA Message for Felon Francis Santa: We Cannot Be Bribed. Stop the Harassment
-
Federal Judges2 years agoSelective Justice: Law Firm Assistant Criminally Charged with $3M IOLTA Theft But Lawyers Who Steal Millions Are Not.
-
Eleventh Circuit4 years agoFlorida Insurance Defense Lawyer Curtis Lee Allen Faces Ethics Complaint Filed by the Florida Bar
-
Appellate Circuit4 years agoWho is Liar Lawyer Sabrina Rose-Smith of Goodwin Procter, LLP?