Connect with us

CFPB

Judge Kevin Newsom’s Opinion Is a Gift Letter for Class Action Lawyers

Providing consumer information to a letter vendor constitutes a communication with an unauthorized third party in violation of the FDCPA.

Published

on

Compliance Conundrum: 11th Cir. Holds Disclosing Consumer Information to Third Party Letter Vendors Violates FDCPA

APR 23, 2021

On April 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision holding that the transmittal of consumer information to a letter vendor constitutes a communication with an unauthorized third party in connection with the collection of a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b). The court’s decision in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc. is available here.

The facts are relatively straight-forward. The collector electronically transmitted information about the consumer and his debt to its letter vendor, which then used that information to create and send a letter to the consumer.

Standing to Bring the 1692c(b) Claim

Before addressing the merits of the consumer’s claim, the court determined whether the consumer had standing to pursue that claim. The court noted that the consumer could not establish standing based upon a tangible harm, as he failed to allege one.

The consumer was also unable to establish standing based on an impending risk of significant harm. Therefore, the court looked to whether the consumer was able to identify a statutory violation that gave rise to an intangible, yet still concrete, injury.

When determining whether a statuary violation confers Article III standing, courts consider history and the judgment of Congress. After reviewing the history of American and English common law, the court found that the alleged injury was sufficiently analogous to the tort of invasion of privacy.

The court also found that the judgment of Congress supported standing because “invasions of individual privacy” were among the harms that Congress explicitly targeted in enacting the FDCPA.

You might recall that the Eleventh Circuit recently addressed whether a consumer had standing to assert claims under § 1692e and § 1692f regarding the absence of a statute-of-limitations revival warning in a collection letter. Trichell v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 964 F.3d 990 (11th Cir. 2020).

The court in Trichell held that the consumer did not have standing to pursue those claims because, among other things, he was not actually misled by the letter.

The court distinguished its decision in Trichell by explaining that the § 1692e claim asserted in that case bore an insufficiently close relationship to the most analogous common-law tort (fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation).

Also, there is no evidence that Congress intended to address, as the court put it in Trichell, “misleading communication[s] that fail to mislead.”

However, Congress specifically identified invasions of privacy as one of the harms against which the FDCPA was directed. Accordingly, the court held that the consumer had standing to pursue his § 1692c(b) claim.

Providing Information to a Letter Vendor States a Claim Under 1692c(b)

Moving to the merits of the consumer’s claim, the court noted that the collector did not dispute that its transmittal of information to the letter vendor was a “communication” as that term is defined at 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2).

This concession meant that the court only needed to decide whether that communication was made “in connection with the collection of any debt” in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b).

The court first determined that the phrase “in connection with” and the word “connection” are both broadly defined and require only a relationship or association.

From there, the court arrived at the “inescapable” conclusion that the collector’s transmittal of data (including consumer name, creditor name, and account balance) to the letter vendor was related to or associated with the consumer’s debt and, therefore, was “in connection with the collection” of that debt.

The collector asserted three arguments in support of its position that the transmittal to its letter vendor was not “in connection with the collection of any debt.”

The court rejected all three.

The collector first argued, citing prior Eleventh Circuit decisions, that a communication is not in connection with the collection of a debt unless it includes a demand for payment.

The court rejected this argument and explained that its prior cases implying such a requirement addressed alleged violations of § 1692e, not § 1692c(b).

The court also noted that § 1692c(b) contains exceptions for communications with certain third parties, such as credit reporting agencies, to which no demand for payment would be directed. Those exceptions would be redundant if a communication had to include a demand for payment to be “in connection with the collection of any debt” under § 1692c(b).

The collector next argued that the Eleventh Circuit should apply a multi-factor balancing test used by the Sixth Circuit in evaluating whether a communication was “in connection with the collection of any debt” under § 1692e.

The court again noted the linguistic and operational differences between § 1692e and § 1692c(b) in rejecting this argument.

Compliance Conundrum

At the risk of oversimplifying the third argument, the collector essentially argued that numerous debt collectors use letter vendors yet there were no court decisions holding that the use of letter vendors violates the FDCPA.

In rejecting this argument, the court observed that this case might be the first to decide whether a collector violates § 1692c(b) by transmitting information to a letter vendor.

The court understood that its interpretation of § 1692c(b) “runs the risk of upsetting the status quo in the debt-collection industry,” that it could be extended beyond the use of letter vendors, and that it “may well require debt collectors (at least in the short term) to in-source many of the services that they had previously outsourced, potentially at great cost.”

However, the court believed that the plain language of the statute compelled its holding.

Acceleration

Who is Presiding Judge Andrea Gundersen, Mortgage Foreclosure Division, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit?

Judge Gundersen presides over all foreclosures in Broward County. She has been referred to JQC, asking that she be removed from the bench.

Published

on

FL Honest Lending Report

REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUL 5, 2021

After orchestrating one of the largest consumer frauds in American history, the banking industry continues the unethical and illegal servicing and foreclosure practices that were uncovered during the “robo-signing” scandal which eventually led to the $25b settlement with 49 State Attorneys General in 2012.

While some of the unethical practices regarding origination were curbed after the settlement, unethical servicing and fraudulent foreclosures continue to plague homeowners.

Floridians for Honest Lending (FHL) reviewed several hundred foreclosure complaints filed in 2019 by Bank of America, the Bank of New York Mellon, and JP Morgan Chase in the Eleventh and Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Courts that comprise Miami-Dade and Broward counties respectively. Upon that review, FHL found 369 foreclosure complaints were filed with rubber-stamped blank endorsements with signatures of David SpectorLaurie MederMichele Sjolander, and Cynthia Riley, whose names became synonymous with the robo-signing scandal. Of those, 325 were loans originated by Countrywide, the disgraced mortgage company that was bought by Bank of America in 2008.

In addition, FHL found that in Miami-Dade alone, 310 homes had been sold at auction since January 2019 that included these same rubber-stamped blank endorsements from these same rubber-stamped blank endorsements, 21 of which were sold during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The fraudulent rubber-stamped blank endorsements are used to establish standing and the banks’ right to foreclose on homeowners, the same homeowners that were sold predatory loans and pushed into foreclosure with unethical servicing practices.

This practice of filing false documents was documented by 60 Minutes in 2011 and was part of the complaint filed by the 49 State Attorneys General.

It was discovered after the $25b National Mortgage Settlement that Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase continued to submit forged documents, now relying on forgery and perjury, in foreclosures across the nation.

Unfortunately, the banks’ reckless greed left millions of properties with mortgages and promissory notes corrupted and the chain of title on those properties broken, putting trial court judges in an uncomfortable position of either taking the banking industry to task for these forged documents or kicking a family out of their home.

Unfortunately, with little scrutiny from the media, legislators, or regulators, our court system has heavily favored the latter.

In fact, FHL’s review found that in Broward county, 217 of the 219 foreclosure complaints filed in 2019 that included fraudulent rubber stamps were assigned to Judge Andrea Gundersen.

Of these cases assigned to Judge Gundersen, 126 of them have been closed, none of which were ruled in favor of the defendant.

Currently, Judge Gundersen presides over all foreclosures in Broward County.

She was reassigned from Family Court and does not have prior experience in foreclosure litigation.

Since her reassignment, defense attorneys have filed motions for judicial disqualification against Judge Gundersen for allowing attorneys for Bank of America to misrepresent the law and argue that “fraud on the court” is allowed in foreclosure because of a “litigation privilege” and ordering the defendant to pay the Bank’s attorney’s fees for challenging the fraud.

In April 2021, Judge Gundersen granted nineteen motions for disqualification in cases she presided over.

The clients have referred Judge Gundersen to the Judicial Qualifications Commission asking that she be removed from the bench.

These fraudulent foreclosures impact real people like Ana Rodriguez, an 82-year-old homeowner who was a former Cuban political prisoner, who now faces eviction because she was sold a predatory loan by Countrywide.

It impacts people like Mrs. Marie Williams-James who never missed a mortgage payment but Bank of America foreclosed on her anyway and Mr. and Mrs. Simpson who were working on a mortgage modification when the Judge refused the bank’s motion for continuance and forced the Simpsons into a fraudulent foreclosure judgment.

There is a new foreclosure crisis looming due to the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. As we get the pandemic under control, the federal government will be under increased pressure from the banking industry to lift the FHFA moratorium for federally-backed mortgages from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

That moratorium only protects borrowers who had strong enough credit scores to qualify for government-backed mortgages. The elderly, communities of color, and first-time homebuyers who took subprime mortgages are not protected by any moratorium and are still being evicted during the pandemic.

The issue of fraudulent foreclosures must be resolved before this new crisis begins. This is an issue that demands action at the local, state, and federal levels from legislators, regulators, and our judicial system.

We cannot continue to allow fraud in our justice system for the convenience of the banking industry and at the expense of homeowners’ American Dream.

Floridian for Honest Lending is a project of Opportunity For All Floridians, a 501c4 non-profit organization. We believe that our system will only work with transparency, honesty, and accountability. Our research can be found here.

Each complaint filed by the banks’ attorneys is linked in the second column. The forged rubber stamps can usually be found on the promissory notes that are included in the exhibits.

Below you can also find a sample of the varied David Spector signatures.

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

Appellate Judges

A Petition for Review is Unsurprisingly Dismissed by the Judges Judgin’ Judges at 11th Circuit

The Eleventh Circuit’s appointed Judicial Council is comprised of 11th Circuit Judges and Chief Judges from the lower courts. That is corruption.

Published

on

The Burkes Petition for Review of a Judicial Complaint Against Judge Ken Marra, S.D. Fl. is Dismissed By 11th Cir. Judges and Chief District Judges. Here’s What Y’all Need to Know.

30 APR 2021 : RE JUDGE KENNETH A. MARRA, S.D. FL. | PUBLISHED 20 MAY, 2021

Catch Up First by Reading the Petition for Review: Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 11-20- 90113

4 MARCH 2021 : RE JUDGE KENNETH A. MARRA, S.D. FL.

DECIDED APR. 30, 2021

FOR THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

11-20-90113

IN RE: COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL · MISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY FILED BY JOANNA BURKE AND JOHN BURKE, PETITIONERS CONCERNING THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA

UNDER COURT SEAL

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW*

Before: “[CHARLES] WILSON, [BEV] MARTIN, [BERT] JORDAN, [ROBIN] ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, [KEVIN] NEWSOM, [LISA] BRANCH, [BRITT] GRANT, and [ROBERT] LUCK, Circuit Judges;

MOORE, THRASH, CORRIGAN, COOGLER, DuBOSE, HALL, TREADWELL, WALKER, and MARKS, Chief District Judges.

Upon consideration of the petitioners’ complaint by a review panel consisting of Judges Wilson, Martin, Branch, Coogler, and Walker, the order of Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr., filed on 27 January 2021, and of the petition for review filed by the complainants on 8 March 2021, with no non-disqualified judge on the Judicial Council Review Panel having requested that this matter be placed on the agenda of a meeting of the Judicial Council,

The Judicial Council Review Panel hereby determines that the disposition of this matter was proper and said disposition is hereby AFFIRMED.

The foregoing actions are APPROVED.
JUDICIAL COUNCIL:

CHARLES WILSON
United States Circuit Judge

* Chief Circuit Judge William H. Pryor Jr. did not take part in the review of this petition.

MEET OCWEN DEFENDER, ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUDGE KEVIN NEWSOM

Newsom was on the final panel – the one responsible for issuing the “Whiteout Opinion”, and one of 8 judges assigned on this pro se intervenor appeal from S.D. Fl. court.

MEET KAVANAUGH’S CLERK, ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUDGE BRITT GRANT

Grant was on the final panel – the one responsible for issuing the “Whiteout Opinion”, and one of 8 judges assigned on this pro se intervenor appeal from S.D. Fl. court. She claims to follow the judicial oath and that she is not swayed by her judicial colleagues (see video) when the rule of law and her oath come first and will stand up for litigants. She’s a Liar.

MEET US MARSHALL’S FAVORITE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUDGE ROBIN ROSENBAUM

Rosenbaum is the only Judge that was never on the Burkes appeal, but the issue here is she took a dislike to LIT’s highlighting her financial report and property. She involved the U.S. Marshalls who threatened LIT in correspondence to remove her address and home from this page. We rejected that as abuse of power and unconstitutional, if not criminal under color of law. Less than twenty four hrs later, Rosebaum and the other panel members in the Petition for Rehearing En Banc denied the Burkes request.

MEET THE BIAS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUDGE CHARLES WILSON

Wilson was on the final panel and denied every motion the Burkes presented. He was on the original complaint against Marra as the letter above confirms and also signed the letter from the Judicial Council. So he was on all panel opinions. That’s  “Fraud upon Fraud”.

MEET RETIRING ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUDGE BEV MARTIN

Martin was on the original panel – she was on the Judicial Council panel and again for the review. A mirror of Charles Wilson. She is happy to do so as she announced her retirement this week, scheduled for Sept. 2021.

MEET TAX DODGIN’ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUDGE BUT FIRST AND FOREMOST A REAL ESTATE INVESTOR, JILL PRYOR

Judge Jill Pryor was on the original panel and was asked to recuse by the Burkes. She refused and then she Sealed the Burkes recusal motion. The Burkes objected. She was never seen again until after the new 3-panel opinion on 2 Nov., 2020. Then she was involved in all reviews and councils thereafter. Her story is long, like her personal issues too…

MEET THE ‘REPUTATION IS EVERYTHING’ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUDGE BERT JORDAN

Bert the bouncer is focused on lawyer integrity. He needs to look around him and in a mirror. Bert’s words in his speech at St. Thomas’s law school graduation ceremony would be plagiarized by Judge Lisa Branch at the Fedsoc gathering in Fl. in early 2020. In short, they are both untrue to their own words and warnings.

MEET THE NEW FEDERAL RULES DISSENTER, ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUDGE LISA BRANCH

Branch interjected herself into the appeal as a half-hearted attempt to fix the ongoing drama with Judge Jill Pryor – who was refusing to recuse and also sending out U.S. Marshalls to the Burkes residence undercover (fail) – Branch would dissent on the correct rules and  interpretation of CIP to issue an unlawful order against the Burkes.

MEET FAKE BILLING EXPERT AND ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUDGE ROBERT LUCK

Luck was on the panel along with Chief Judge Bill Pryor and Judge Jill Pryor in the case shown in the self-explanatory video below. All judges would turn a blind eye to legal fraud by Kaplan’s attorney’s and forget to mention any or  all of Luck’s comments at oral argument to allow the lawyers to get away with fraudulent transfers by fake invoicing of firm fees. e.g. Regions Bank were defrauded out of recovering hundreds of thousands of dollars.

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

Bankers

Florida Attorney Filing Lawsuits Against Deutsche Bank is Facing Sanctions for Telling the Truth, Repeatedly

The Straw Man, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., the name used to illegally and unlawfully steal homesteads from American homeowners, is seeking sanctions from Lee Segal, a Florida attorney who obtained $30m or so in default judgments against Deutsche Bank. We’re smiling.

Published

on

LIT COMMENTARY

Update: May 6, 2021

Deutsche Bank is seeking $45,000 in attorney fees as well as other “just and proper” financial penalties from Lee Segal of Segal & Schuh Law Group for multiple filings. Segal is fighting the bid, saying it was filed too late as the case has been dismissed.

Depoalo v. Deutsche Bank , Case No: 2:21-cv-38-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2021)

MAR 1, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAY 6, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER1

Before the Court is Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s Amended Motion to Quash Service of Process and Vacate Clerk’s Default (Doc. 13), Plaintiff Darleen Depoalo’s Motion for Remand (Doc. 21), and Depoalo’s Motion to Strike Untimely Hearsay Declaration and/or for Leave to Reply (Doc. 26).

For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion to quash, denies the motion to remand, and denies the motion to strike.

1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This is one of over 25 virtually identical complaints filed across Florida against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”) by a cadre of attorneys associated with Attorney Lee Segal.2 (Doc. 14).3

In short, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege DBNTC’s prosecution of foreclosure actions were “fraudulent, illegal, and perjurious” and rendered the rulings void. (Doc. 3 at 4).

2 Mr. Segal signed his filings in federal court as Lior Segal, but as Lee Segal in state court. Mr. Segal’s Florida Bar registration information lists his name as Lee Segal, as does his admission to the Middle District of Florida.

3 This may be a significant under-estimation, as recent filings reference over 50 virtually identical cases. (See Case No. 2:21-cv-42-SPC-NPM, Doc. 27).

JUDGE CHAPPELL

First, the plaintiffs allege DBNTC never legally owned the mortgages it sought to foreclose. (Id. at 4-5).

LIT COMMENT: ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

Second, the plaintiffs allege that the beneficiaries of the trust holding the mortgages never authorized the foreclosure suits. (Id. at 5).

LIT COMMENT: ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

Third, the plaintiffs allege DBNTC’s trust license had been revoked so it was illegal for it to act as a trustee to the pooled mortgages.(Id.)

LIT COMMENT: ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

Thus, the plaintiffs allege, DBNTC engaged in a series of frauds in attempting to collect an unlawful debt, including recording a lis pendens, in violation of Florida’s Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 772.101, et seq.

LIT COMMENT: ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, NATIONWIDE, NOT JUST FL.

The complaints in each case are fundamentally identical except for the quintessential variables of the plaintiff and property. But these facts are virtually irrelevant to the legal claims as currently pled.

Indeed, the allegations as to the supposed fraudulent behavior in each of the underlying foreclosure actions is generalized and not case specific.

Tellingly threading these complaints together, all but one of the complaints before the undersigned, including those ostensibly filed by attorneys other than Mr. Segal like this one, have the same transposition typos citing non-existent Fla. Stat.§ 772.013(1)–(4) and § 772.014, instead of correct citations to Fla. Stat. § 772.103(1)–(4) and § 772.104. (See Doc. 3 at 11).4

LIT COMMENT: WHAT? LIKE DEUTSCHE BANK, A STRAW MAN, USED BY ROGUE FORECLOSURE MILL LAWYERS, FILED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF UNLAWFUL COMPLAINTS WITH ROBO-SIGNED, FAKE DOCS – AND WHEREIN NOTHING HAPPENED…TOO BIG TO FAIL, TOO BIG TO JAIL.

But the complaints themselves are not the only similarity linking these cases. Foreclosure actions necessarily take place in the county where the mortgaged property is located.

Nearly every lawsuit filed by Mr. Segal and his colleagues, however, contain the same procedural oddity: they were filed in a separate county from the underlying foreclosure action.

Here, for example, Depoalo’s property is in Palm Harbor, Pinellas County, Florida. Depoalo brought this fraud action related to the Pinellas County foreclosure not in Pinellas County, however, but half a state away in rural Hendry County, Florida.

4 The undersigned has nine cases involving these claims against either DBNTC or the Bank of New York Mellon: 2:21-cv-9-SPC-NPM, 2:21-cv-37-SPC-NPM, 2:21-cv-38-SPC-NPM, 2:21- cv-39-SPC-NPM, 2:21-cv-40-SPC-NPM, 2:21-cv-42-SPC-NPM, 2:21-cv-47-SPC-NPM, 2:21-cv-66-SPC-NPM, and 2:21-cv-80-SPC-NPM. Seven have transposition errors as to § 772.103. Eight have transposition errors as to § 772.104. The only complaint that contains multiple counts, Case 2:21-cv-47-SPC-NPM, is not internally consistent as to its transposition errors, with Count 1 citing § 772.103 and § 772.104, Count 2 citing § 772.013 and § 772.014, and Count 3 citing § 772.103 and § 772.014. Only one case, 2:21-cv-80-SPC-NPM, appears to correctly cite the statutes invoked.

Another pronounced procedural oddity linking these lawsuits is this matter before the Court: service of process. Depoalo sued in Hendry County 20th Judicial Circuit Court on November 17, 2020. Depoalo served her complaint and summons on “CT CORP” at 28 Liberty Street in New York on November 18, 2020. (Doc. 13-1). The process server, Michael Levey, included on the affidavit of service:

Per Jacquelin Walton at the security desk, the respondent Deutsche Bank of 60 Wall Street NY NY has directions to continue to serve process at CT Corp 28 Liberty Street NY NY 10005 as no one currently is present in the building who is authorized to accept legal papers. As of 11/12/20 she does not know when this method will revert to the original service address.

(Id.) On November 20, 2020, CT Corporation System (“CT”) sent a letter to Depoalo’s counsel, Megan Lazenby, indicating that CT was not the registered agent of DBNTC and would be unable to forward the complaint and summons purportedly served by Levey. (Doc. 13-2 at 3).5

Depoalo sought summary judgment after default. (See Doc 1-2 at 27). DBNTC appeared on or about January 7, 2021, (Doc. 21 at 4; Doc. 1-2 at 4), then removed the matter to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction on January 14, 2021, (Doc. 1).

5 CT had sent Ms. Lazenby at least four other letters in November and December 2020 indicating the same—that CT is not the registered agent for DBNTC and could not accept service on its behalf. (Doc. 13-4).

FL. ATTORNEY LEE SEGAL

MOTION TO REMAND

Multiple motions are before the Court, but Depoalo’s motion to remand must be addressed first given it implicates the Court’s jurisdiction. See Univ. of S. Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[A] federal court must remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction notwithstanding the presence of other motions pending before the court.”).

Depoalo argues that DBNTC’s notice of removal was untimely because her complaint was served on November 18, 2020, but removal was not effected until January 14, 2021, well beyond the 30-day time limit.

DBNTC responds that removal was timely because the complaint has never been properly served and notice of removal was filed shortly after DBNTC first learned of this case.

A notice of removal “shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).

A “defendant’s time to remove is triggered by simultaneous service of the summons and complaint, or receipt of the complaint, ‘through service or otherwise,’ after and apart from service of the summons, but not by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal service.”

Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347- 48 (1999).

“Even where a defendant has actual notice of the filing of a suit, service of process is ineffective where it does not comply with the rules of service.”

Hunt v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 782 F. App’x 762, 764 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).

“In actions removed from state court, the sufficiency of service of process prior to removal is determined by the law of the state from which the action was removed.”

Rentz v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc., 185 F.R.D. 693, 696 (M.D. Ga. 1998); Usatorres v. Marina Mercante Nicaraguenses, S.A., 768 F.2d 1285, 1286 n.1 (11th Cir. 1985).

Here, the parties cannot reasonably dispute that DBNTC’s notice of removal was untimely if service was proper, and timely if service was improper.

Thus, resolution of the motion to remand turns entirely on resolution of DBNTC’s motion to quash.

MOTION TO QUASH

Florida law sets specific requirements for serving financial institutions. Fla. Stat. § 48.092.

Financial institutions may designate a registered agent for service of process within the state, but it is not required. Fla. Stat. § 655.0201(2).

If the financial institution has no registered agent, “service may be made to any officer, director, or business agent of the financial institution at its principal place of business or at any other branch, office, or place of business in the state.” Fla. Stat. § 655.0201(3)(a).

DBNTC is a national banking organization formed under the laws of the United States and is authorized by the United States Department of Treasury to transact in the business of banking and to act as a fiduciary. (Doc. 13-3).

DBNTC’s main office is in Los Angeles, California and its primary trust operations office is in Santa Ana, California. (Doc. 24-1 at 3; see Doc. 13-3).6 DBNTC does not have a branch, office, or place of business in Florida. (Doc. 24-1 at 3).

Like many Deutsche Bank-affiliated entities (see Doc. 22-1 at 1; Doc. 22-2 at 1), DBNTC maintained an office at 60 Wall Street to accept service at that address but has not done so since March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Doc. 24-1 at 4).

Since DBNTC has no registered agent, branch, office, or place of business in Florida, Depoalo must have served DBNTC in California to comply with Florida’s law of service. Depoalo asserts she first sought to serve Deutsche Bank at 60 Wall Street, New York, NY, but was instructed to serve CT at 28 Liberty Street, New York, NY.

This is where the defect in Depoalo’s service begins.

Depoalo equated DBNTC—Deutsche Bank National Trust Company— with Deutsche Bank.

Regardless of the connection between these two entities (see Doc. 12) (corporate disclosure statement), Depoalo has not proved that service upon some other Deutsche Bank entity effectuates valid service upon DBNTC.

See Amtrust N. Am. v. Sennebogen Maschinenfabrij GmbH, 2020 WL 5441407, at *11 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2020) (summons for lawsuit against German company Sennebogen GmbH served upon its American affiliate, Sennebogen LLC, was ineffectual), R&R adopted by 2020 WL 5423203, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2020).

Nor can Depoalo prove that attempted service upon Deutsche Bank’s purported agent, CT, renders valid service upon the separate and distinct entity of DBNTC.

Depoalo seeks to save her service defect by arguing about the pre- and post-COVID-19 service norms at 60 Wall Street. Levey is familiar with serving “various Deutsche Bank entities” at 60 Wall Street. (Doc. 22-1 at 1).

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Levey and his agents would approach the security desk for service, then the security personnel would contact the appropriate Deutsche Bank employee who came to the lobby to accept service. (Id. at 2).

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, 60 Wall Street became vacant and, at some point, a paper sign was taped up that read:

“Please direct all service to: . . . CT Corporation System Registered Agent, 28 Liberty Street.” (Id. at 2, 6-9).

This paper sign was updated in early December 2020 to read:

“Please direct all Deutsche Bank service EXCEPT for service [on] Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to: . . . CT Corporation.” (Id. at 5, 10).

But this misses the mark.

Florida law requires service upon DBNTC in California.

That DBNTC accepted service at 60 Wall Street before March 2020 as a courtesy does not codify a change to statutes governing service. Moreover, DBNTC had not designated CT as its registered agent (Doc. 24-1 at 5), and, given the many identical lawsuits handled by Depoalo’s attorney and her colleagues, Depoalo had ample notice that CT was not a registered agent of DBNTC and could not accept service on its behalf. Service here was defective and must be quashed.

Florida’s service statutes are strictly enforced.

Shurman v. Atl. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 795 So. 2d 952, 954 (Fla. 2001).

If a party fails to comply with Florida’s service requirements, subsequent judgments are voidable.

Floyd v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 704 So. 2d 1110, 1112 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998).

DBNTC was never served.

Instead, Depoalo served a purported agent of a non- party. This service is so defective that it amounted to no notice whatsoever to DBNTC of the proceedings.

The improper service necessitates a finding of good cause to void the default judgment.

Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) (permitting court to set aside entry of default for good cause).

The irony here is palpable:

Depoalo failed to appreciate the separate corporate identities of DBNTC and Deutsche Bank where her complaint asserts a blurring of mortgage owners and mortgage servicers caused her damages.

The continued, knowingly invalid service on non-party, non-agent CT of lawsuits against DBNTC followed by default judgments in state court…

…has the same stink of fraud-upon-the-court that the numerous plaintiffs allege was perpetrated upon them.

Depoalo will not be afforded a set of rules apart from DBNTC.

Because the Court finds service was defective here, it follows that DBNTC’s removal to federal court was timely. DBNTC learned of the lawsuit and promptly removed it within the 30-day time limit.

Depoalo’s motion to remand is denied.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Depoalo moves to strike the Declaration of Ronaldo Reyes (Doc. 24-1) as untimely. The declaration was attached to DBNTC’s response to Depoalo’s motion to remand.

Depoalo first argues the declaration should be stricken because it was not filed alongside DBNTC’s motion to quash. Depoalo’s argument lacks merit.

As discussed, the motion to remand and the motion to quash are intertwined and resolution of one requires consideration of the other. The Court will not strike an affidavit because it was filed with DBNTC’s memorandum opposing Depoalo’s motion to remand rather than with DBNTC’s motion to quash.

Depoalo then argues that the declaration contains hearsay because Reyes signed it and it was notarized in California where he works, rather than in New York where the service efforts took place.

Reyes’ declaration is signed in his capacity as Vice President of DBNTC and provides sufficient foundation for his knowledge of DBNTC’s operations.

Depoalo’s argument fails.

Finally, Depoalo asks for leave to respond should the Court deny her motion to strike. This request is denied.

Motion practice is not a barter system.

Depoalo’s strategic choice of responding to DBNTC’s motion to quash with her own motion to strike rather than submitting full substantive briefing is hers to make.

The deadline to respond has now passed.

The motion to strike contains ample argument responding to DBNTC’s motion to quash. The Court will not provide multiple opportunities to brief the same motion.

CONCLUSION

Service here was defective and DBNTC received no notice of the lawsuit.

As soon as DBNTC learned of the state court proceeding, it appeared and removed this matter to federal court.

That removal was timely and appropriate.

Until Depoalo serves DBNTC, the Court lacks jurisdiction over it.

The Court will allow 30 days for Depoalo to properly serve DBNTC.

Given the service irregularities in this lawsuit and the related lawsuits, if Depoalo fails to effectuate service, the Court will dismiss this matter with prejudice.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s Motion to Quash Service of Process and Vacate Clerk’s Default (Doc. 13) is GRANTED.

Service is QUASHED and the default entered against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in state court is VACATED.

Plaintiff Darleen Depoalo’s Motion for Remand (Doc. 21) is DENIED.

Plaintiff Darleen Depoalo’s Motion to Strike Untimely Hearsay Declaration and/or for Leave to Reply (Doc. 26) is DENIED.

LEE SEGAL TAKES ON DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST IN FEDERAL COURT

04/30/2021 2950 Summer Swan Land Trust v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
2:21-cv-00042-SPC-NPM
ORDERED: This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to serve, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with Court Orders. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminate any pending motions or deadlines, and close the case. Signed
Judge Sheri Polster Chappell
04/30/2021 Quest Systems LLC v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
2:21-cv-00040-SPC-NPM
ORDERED: This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to serve, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with Court Orders. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminate any pending motions or deadlines, and close the case. Signe
Judge Sheri Polster Chappell
04/30/2021 Weber v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
2:21-cv-00039-SPC-NPM
ORDERED: This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to serve, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with Court Orders. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminate any pending motions or deadlines, and close the case. Signe
Judge Sheri Polster Chappell
04/30/2021 Market Tampa Investments, LLC v Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
2:21-cv-00037-SPC-NPM
ORDERED: This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to serve, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with Court Orders. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminate any pending motions or deadlines, and close the case. Signed
Judge Sheri Polster Chappell
04/30/2021 Kenny v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
2:21-cv-00009-SPC-NPM
ORDERED: This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to serve, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with Court Orders. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminate any pending motions or deadlines, and close the case. Signed

 

 

 

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT COUNTY PLAINTIFF

ATTORNEY

AREIAS, EVA Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee Alachua

01 2020 CA 002497

Segal, Lee
AREIAS, EVA Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee Clay

2020-CA-000955

Lazenby, Megan
ABPAYMAR, LLC, As Trustee For The 30531 Midtown Court Land Trust Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee, In Trust Registered Holders Of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-3, Asset- Backed Certificates, Series 2005-3 Baker

2020-CA-000115

Segal, Lee
ABPAYMAR LLC, As Trustee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Clay

2020-CA-000695

Segal, Lee; Lazenby, Megan
ABPAYMAR LLC, As Trustee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Pasco

2020-CA-1437ESB

Segal, Lee
DECOURSY, RICHARD Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee USDC ND – Panama City Div. 5:21-cv-00014 Segal, Lee
DECOURSY, RICHARD Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For Residential Asset Securitization Trust Series 2003-A10, Mortgage Pass- Through Certificates Series 2003-AJ USDC MD – Ocala Div. 5:21-cv-00040 Segal, Lee
HAULSEE, MICHAEL AND MARCIA Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee USDC ND – Pensacola Div. 3:21-cv-00077 Turner-Hahn, Carla; Wolf, Matthew

 

 

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT COUNTY PLAINTIFF

ATTORNEY

HAULSEE, MICHAEL AND MARCIA Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, As Trustee For Residential Accredit Loans, Inc.

Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates,

Series 2007-QS4

USDC MD – Tampa Div. 8:20-cv-02410

Dismissed

Segal, Lee
LOFGREN, ANNA Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For Wamu Mortgage Pass- Thru Certificates, Series 2006-Ar1 Trust And Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, F.K.A Banker Trust Company, As Trustee And Custodian For IXIS 2005-HE4 Bradford

04-2020-CA-000340

Segal, Lee
LOFGREN, ANNA Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee Okeechobee 2020-CA-000212 Lazenby, Megan
BCP Management LLC, As Trustee For 11717 81st Place Land Trust Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For The Gsamp Trust 2005- HE3 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-HE3 Brevard

05-2020-CA-047023

Segal, Lee
BCP Management, LLC, As Trustee For The 10611 Bamboo Road Land Trust Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-8 USDC MD – Ocala Div. 5:21-CV-00071 Segal, Lee
BCP Management, LLC, As Trustee For 18522 Sunward Lake Land Trust Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For Morgan Stanley Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2006-3 USDC ND – Panama City Div. 5:21-cv-00017 Segal, Lee
JACARANDA, LLC, As Trustee For The Certificateholders Of The Brev 1144 Land Trust Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For Soundview Home Loan Trust 2004-1, Asset-Backed

Certificates Series 2004-1

Brevard

05-2020-CA-035223

Segal, Lee

 

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT COUNTY PLAINTIFF

ATTORNEY

ZIFERRYN VENTURES LLC, As

Trustee Of The 8172 Via Rosa Land Trust

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Indenture Trustee For Mortgage Trust 2005-2 Charlotte

2020-CA-000747

Dismissed

Lazenby, Megan; Segal, Lee
ZIFERRYN VENTURES LLC, As

Trustee Of The 8172 Via Rosa

Land Trust

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company As Indenture Clay

2020-CA-000929

Lazenby, Megan; Mausser, Gregory K.
YHT And Associates, Inc., As Trustee Under 20438 Homosassa Court I.V. Trust Dated January 17, 2012 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee On Behalf Of The Holders Of The Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage-Asset- Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-Qs3 USDC MD – Jacksonville Div. 3:21-cv-00050 Segal, Lee
KENNY, TAMMY Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee Of Argent Mortgage Securities, Inc., Asset- Backed Pass Through Certificates Series 2004- W11, Under The Pooling And Servicing Agreement Dated As Of October 1, 2004 Without Recourse USDC MD – Ft. Myers Div. 2:21-cv-00009 Segal, Lee
GEORGE WEBER, As Trustee Of The 12321 Adventure Drive Land Trust Dated 12/30/2011 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For New Century Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2005-B, Asset-Backed Pass- Through Certificates USDC MD – Ft. Myers Div. 2:21-cv-00039 Segal, Lee
GEORGE WEBER, As Trustee Of The 12321 Adventure Drive Land Trust Dated 12/30/2011 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For New Century Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2005-B, Asset-Backed Pass- Through Certificates USDC ND – Gainesville Div. 1:21-cv-00015 Segal, Lee

 

 

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT COUNTY PLAINTIFF

ATTORNEY

GEORGE WEBER, As Co-

Trustee Of The 10703 Beagle Run Place Land Trust, Dated 12/30/11

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Lee

2020-CA-005336

Segal, Lee
GEORGE WEBER, As Co-

Trustee Of The 10703 Beagle Run Place Land Trust, Dated 12/30/11

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company USDC MD – Jacksonville Div. 3:21-cv-00102 Segal, Lee
INLAND ASSETS, LLC, As

Trustee For The 4417 Rudder Way Land Trust

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For GSAMP Trust 2006-NC2,

Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006- NC2

USDC MD – Jacksonville Div. 3:21-cv-00040 Segal, Lee
INLAND ASSETS, LLC, As

Trustee For The 4417 Rudder Way

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Pasco

2020-CA-001794

Segal, Lee
INLAND ASSETS, LLC, As

Trustee For 4462 Rudder Way Trust

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Walton

2020-CA-000410

Lazenby, Megan; Wolf, Matthew
BLACKROCK ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC As

Trustee For The 2950 Summer Swan Land Trust

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For Indymac Indx Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR1 USDC MD – Ft. Myers Div. MD 5:21-cv-00042 Segal, Lee
BLACKROCK ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, As

Trustee For RC Certificateholders Land Trust

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Hillsborough 20-CA-009950 Wolf, Matthew
MARKET TAMPA INVESTMENTS, LLC Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2007 Novastar Home Equity Loan Asset-Back Certificates,

Series 2007

USDC MD – Ft. Myers Div. 2:21-cv-00037 Segal, Lee

 

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT COUNTY PLAINTIFF

ATTORNEY

LP ASSETS, LLC, As Trustee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Dixie

2020-CA-000035

Segal, Lee
LP ASSETS, LLC, As Trustee DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, As

Trustee For Financial Asset Securities Corp., Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007- WMC1, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007- WMC1

Pinellas

19-008350-CI

Segal, Lee
LP ASSETS, LLC, As Trustee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For Financial Asset Securities Corp., Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007- WMCI, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007- WMC1 Pinellas

20-003799-CI

Segal, Lee
KEATHEL CHAUNCEY, ESQ. As

Trustee Only For The 1234 Holly Circle Land Trust

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Escambia

2020-CA-001394

Segal, Lee
GINSBERG-KLEMMT, ERIKA Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For American Home Mortgage Assets Trust 2006- 5, Mortgage-Backed Pass- Through Certificates, Series 2006-5 USDC ND – Tallahassee Div. 4:21-cv-00041 Segal, Lee
GINSBERG-KLEMMT, ERIKA Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For American Home Mortgage Assets Trust 2006- 5, Mortgage-Backed Pass- Through Certificates, Series 2006-5 USDC SD – Key West Div. 4:21-cv-10010 Segal, Lee
COOK, WALLACE Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas Glades

2020-CA-000084

Segal, Lee

 

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT COUNTY PLAINTIFF

ATTORNEY

COOK, WALLACE Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee Of Argent Securities Inc., Mortgage-Backed Pass- Through Certificates 2004- W1, Under The Pooling And Servicing Agreement Dated February 1, 2004, And Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Formerly Known As Bankers Trust, As Trustee And Custodian Nassau

2020-CA-000270

Segal, Lee
COOK, WALLACE Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, As Trustee For Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS4 Volusia 2020-11139 Segal, Lee
BONAFIDE PROPERTIES, LLC,

As Trustee For The Anderson Family Land Trust

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Gulf

2020-CA-000131

Segal, Lee
DIGIOVANNI, LEONARDO Deutsche Bank National Trust Company F.K.A. Bankers Trust Company Of California, N.A., As Trustee Of The Vendee Mortgage Trust 1999-3, And Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, F.K.A. Bankers Trust Company Of California, N.A., As Trustee Of The Vendee Mortgage Trust 1999-2 Hardee

2020-CA-000292

Segal, Lee
FUBAR ASSETS, LLC, as Trustee For, 3417 70th Glen East Land Trust Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee USDC – MD- Tampa Div. 8:20-cv-03090 Lazenby, Megan

 

 

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT COUNTY PLAINTIFF

ATTORNEY

SHEN YI, LLC, A New Mexico Limited Liability Company, As Trustee Of The 1970 Hidden Lake Dr I.V. Trust Under Agreement Dated August 25, 2011 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Hendry

2020-CA-000336

Segal, Lee
DEPOALO, DARLEEN Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee Under The Pooling Abd Servicing Agreement Dated As Of April 1, 2006 Morgan Stanley Abs Capital 1 Trust 2006-NC3, Mortgage Pass- Through Certificates Series 2006-NC3 USDC MD – Ft. Myers Div. 2:21-cv-00038 Lazenby, Megan
FLORIDA LIMITED INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, INC. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas USDC SD – Ft. Pierce Div. 2:21-cv-014039 Segal, Lee
ABUNDANT LIFE HOMES, LLC Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Indenture Trustee For American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2007-1 USDC ND – Tallahassee Div. 4:21-cv-00053 Lazenby, Megan; Wolf, Matthew
QUEST SYSTEMS, LLC, As

Trustee Of The 16347 Coco Hammock Land Trust Dated November 29, 2012

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For American Home Mortgage Asset Tryst 2006- 2, Mortgage Pass-Through

Certificates, Series 2006-2

USDC MD – Ft. Myers Div. 2:21-cv-00040 Segal, Lee
QUEST SYSTEMS, LLC, A New

Mexico Limited Liability Company As Successor Trustee Under The 4787 Woodward Land Trust Dated October 22, 2012

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4 Sarasota

2020-CA-004318

Segal, Lee; Mausser, Gregory K.

 

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT COUNTY PLAINTIFF

ATTORNEY

ZIFFERRYN VENTURES, LLC, As

Trustee For The 8172 Via Rosa Land Trust

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Orange

2020-CA-003153

Segal, Lee
ZIFERRYN VENTURES, LLC, As

Trustee For The 12033 Gandy Blvd Unit 175 Trust

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-9 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-9 Pinellas

19-000251-CI

Segal, Lee
ZIFERRYN VENTURES, LLC, As

Trustee For The 12033 Gandy Blvd Unit 175 Trust

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-9 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-9 Pinellas

20-003796-CI

Segal, Lee
JEFFREY M. HAHN and CARLA TURNER HAHN Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For Gsaa Home Equity Trust 2006-10, Asset-Backed

Certificates, Series 2006-10

USDC MD – Tampa Div. 8:21-cv-00039 Segal, Lee; Lazenby, Megan
SHANNON, SEAN Deutsche Bank National Trust Company USDC MD – Orlando Div. 6:21-cv-00198 Segal, Lee
WILSON, ALBERT Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee USDC SD – Ft. Pierce Div. 2:21-cv-14036 Segal, Lee

Before the Court is Plaintiff Tammy Kenny’s Amended Motion to consolidate (Doc. 33) and Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s response in opposition (Doc. 36).

Kenny asks the Court to consolidate twenty-five similar cases with this one for the purpose of appealing an Order denying remand and quashing service.

Deutsche Bank opposes on many grounds.

To start, Kenny points to nothing suggesting a district court can decide to consolidate cases only for an interlocutory appeal.

Whether to consolidate cases on appeal is a matter handled by the appellate court.

And when cases are consolidated by a district court for all purposes, each case still maintains its separate identity—ending in a separate judgment and notice of appeal. Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118, 1131 (2018). So, the Court denies the request to consolidate.

Even if the Court could consolidate, it cannot do so with all these cases for a separate reason. This Court may consolidate certain cases before it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); Local Rule 1.07(b).

But Kenny does not seek to only consolidate the cases assigned to the Court.

Kenny wants to consolidate a list of cases assigned to other judges, including many from other Divisions and Districts. Yet the Court does not have the power to simply pluck cases away from other federal judges around Florida.

As Deutsche Bank notes, there is theoretically a process by which Kenny could try consolidating a bunch of cases across the State. But it is much more involved than this empty-handed request to a single judge. So the Motion is denied.

Relatedly, Kenny filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 35) yesterday.

There are several issues with this.

Without authorization, Kenny is trying to appeal a nonfinal interlocutory order (i.e., she’s trying to appeal an order that is currently unappealable).

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 74 (1996) (“An order denying a motion to remand, standing alone, is obviously not final and immediately appealable as of right.” (cleaned up));

Stelly v. Employers Nat’l Ins., 431 F.2d 1251, 1254 (5th Cir. 1970) (explaining an order quashing service is a nonfinal, interlocutory order if it not effectively dispositive).

What’s more, Kenny misfiled the Notice in CM/ECF as a mere case notice.

Until a notice of appeal is properly filed, the Eleventh Circuit will have no inkling of an attempted appeal and CM/ECF will not trigger its necessary functions to process an appeal.

Finally, Kenny failed to pay the filing fee. Leaving aside the substantive issue—certain dismissal of the appeal—the Court strikes the Notice because it was misfiled.

If Kenny would like to try appealing at this time, she must make any necessary filings.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Consolidated [sic] Related Cases for Purpose of Appeal (Doc. 33) is DENIED.

(2) The Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal (Doc. 35).

If Plaintiff intends to pursue an appeal, she must make the appropriate filings.

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 2, 2021.

/s/ _________
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:21-cv-00066-NPM

Shen Yi, LLC v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell
Demand: $859,000

Case in other court:  In the Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit, 2020-CA-000336

Cause: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

Date Filed: 01/26/2021
Date Terminated: 04/07/2021
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Shen Yi, LLC
a New Mexico Limited Liability Company, as Trustee of the 1970 Hidden Lake Dr I.V. Trust Under Agreement Dated August 25, 2011
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
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
as Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-HE8, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE8
represented by Benjamin Bruce Brown
Quarles & Brady, LLP
Suite 300
1395 Panther Ln
Naples, FL 34109-7874
239/659-5026
Fax: 239/213-5426
Email: benjamin.brown@quarles.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph T. Kohn
Quarles & Brady, LLP
Suite 300
1395 Panther Ln
Naples, FL 34109-7874
239/262-5959
Fax: 239/213-5599
Email: joseph.kohn@quarles.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Interested Party
Lee Segal represented by Brett J. Preston
Hill Ward Henderson, PA
101 E Kennedy Blvd – Ste 3700
PO Box 2231
Tampa, FL 33602-5195
813/221-3900
Fax: 813/221-2900
Email: brett.preston@hwhlaw.com
TERMINATED: 05/27/2021
LEAD ATTORNEYLee Segal
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Interested Party
Segal & Schuh Law Group, P.L. represented by Brett J. Preston
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 05/27/2021
LEAD ATTORNEYLee Segal
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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