Connect with us

Federal Judges

LIF Editorial: Drug Smugglin’ Coast Guard and Attorney Sentenced to Probation

James Heyward Silcox III was a Commander in the US Coast Guard and part-time wholesale drug smuggler. His claims to the Fl. Bar he’s an addict LIF found to be unavailing.

Published

on

When the Coast is Clear, Let All the Criminal Lawyers Go Free

JUL 1, 2021
Silcox’s last known address on his February 2021 Fl. Bar Affidavit. The property was sold the following month.

LIF was alerted to Heyward Silcox when the Florida Bar  issued their July 2021 list of misconduct. After reading the Bar’s paperwork, one would think that Heyward went wayward on a drug addiction.

The Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court decided to revoke his license for five years but allow him to reapply as Heyward Silcox was very remorseful and grateful for a second chance.

As part of his rehabilitation, he would complete addiction counseling etc.

However, after LIF’s investigation,  Silcox has clearly committed perjury. He is a lyin’ lawyer. The charge itself is clear on the it’s face, he was a king pin distributing the large quantities of Tramadol, a narcotic, to others for distribution and sale based on the quantities in question.

What you will read in the following article is how Silcox imported wholesale quantities of Tramadol from 2017 until his arrest in 2019, a narcotic. What’s fantastical but true is at the same time he’s assistant trial counsel for the Coast Guard, prosecuting a case where appellant was convicted of four specifications of wrongful use of a controlled substance (cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and oxycodone).

See United States v. Kenneth MOLINARY, No. 1440 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App. 2017).

Nowhere did LIF find any disclosure of these facts, including the government. (We’ll correct this article if we are mistaken, just holla’). It’s also unclear if he was slapped, prosecuted or disbarred by the Coast Guard internally before his resignation or it was deemed ‘moot’ upon his resignation.

It gets more incredulous after his arrest. Silcox is provided with a Public Defender and the prosecution have to arrange a conference with the judge to submit him into retaining his own criminal attorney.

His wife is Lieutenant Commander Emma Silcox who serves as the Base Miami Beach Comptroller. Here’s the job description, the budget she oversees is in the Billions.

Yet her husband’s greed and combined $300,000 annual salaries would not prevent him from trafficking, apparently to fund a new retirement home and related investments and not a falsely claimed addiction.

The icing on the cake is this trusted attorney, JAG and Commander was surfin’ the dark web to purchase his illegal narcs and paying for it with crypto.

In obtaining relief from the Fl. Bar complaint, Silcox’s affidavit in his Petition to the Fl. Bar included;

I, Petitioner, would like to take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to the Florida Bar for its compassion, patience, guidance, and resources, in facilitating my recovery through the exhausting and unpleasant last ~18 months, as I retired from the military, resolved my case, and relocated to Florida. Regardless of whether this Petition is approved, and regardless of whether I earn readmission in five years, I and my family are forever grateful for – and humbled by – the Bar’s support. As we say in recovery, “I cannot start my new future until I give up all hope of a better past.” I own my criminal conduct, and that dark time serves as a constant reminder in keeping my recovery strong and permanent. The Bar has been a tremendous advocate in starting this new, healthy, humble, chapter in my life.

Signed on 22 February, 2021.

Apparently, Silcox claims the same skills as Judge Kenneth “Magic” Marra of S.D. Fl., in that he can predict the future… However, the entry of judgment and sentencing did not happen in the California criminal case until June 2, 2021.

We now know that Mr Silcox  ‘retired’ 18 months before his Feb 2021 affidavit which would be around the time of his indictment in August 2019. It is unclear why he joined the Florida Bar in March of 2018.

Whether Mrs Silcox is still employed by the Department of Homeland Security  is  unknown as we publish this alarming true story.

Judge Jon S. Tigar

Alameda Resident Pleads Guilty To Illegally Importing Narcotics (Yep, this DOJ Headline is Very Understated)

According to the government, Silcox used end-to-end encrypted communication applications and email services to communicate with his overseas suppliers and his downstream domestic customers and used crytpocurrency to make payments.

JUN 29, 2020 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUL 1, 2021

United States v. Silcox

(4:19-cr-00491)

District Court, N.D. California

OAKLAND –James Heyward Silcox III, pleaded guilty to all three counts in an indictment charging him with illegally importing controlled substances, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson, Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent in Charge Tatum King, Coast Guard Investigative Service Special Agent in Charge Kelly Hoyle, and Customs and Border Protection Director of Field Operations Brian J. Humphrey.

Silcox entered the guilty plea without a plea agreement.  The plea was accepted by the Hon. Jon S. Tigar, United States District Judge.

Silcox, 42, of Alameda, Calif., was originally charged by complaint on September 18, 2019.  The complaint alleged that he illegally imported Tramadol from Singapore and Germany to post office boxes he held.  Tramadol is a Schedule IV controlled substance and narcotic.

Silcox, a U.S. Coast Guard Commander, was arrested on the complaint on September 17, 2019, at Coast Guard Island, in Alameda.

During the change of plea hearing, the government advised the court of evidence that Silcox began purchasing tramadol in 2017 online from an unknown person he believed was in Singapore.

The government offered further evidence that Silcox had received shipments of tramadol from three separate overseas suppliers from 2017 to 2019, and sent shipments to downstream buyers of 500-1000 pills per month, which Silcox received from his overseas suppliers at his P.O. boxes.

LIF Comment: So he’s not a drug addict, he’s a drug dealer.

According to the government, Silcox used end-to-end encrypted communication applications and email services to communicate with his overseas suppliers and his downstream domestic customers, and used crytpocurrency to make payments.

LIF Comment: In 2018 he was admitted to the Florida Bar as an Attorney.

On September 26, 2019, a federal grand jury indicted Silcox charging him with three counts of importation of a Schedule IV narcotic drug, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(b)(6).  Pursuant to the guilty plea, Silcox pleaded guilty to all three counts.

Silcox faces a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison, and a fine of $250,000, for each count in the indictment.

However, any sentence would be imposed by the court after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

His next court appearance has been set for September 25, 2020, which is a status hearing concerning the sentencing.

LIF Update: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jon S. Tigar: Sentencing held on 5/28/2021 for James Heyward Silcox, III (1). Committed to a term of 3 years probation, to be served concurrently with terms imposed on Count(s): 1, 2 and 3; $300.00 special assessment; $5,000.00 fine

Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah E. Griswold is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Mimi Lam.

The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the Homeland Security Investigations; the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area-Transnational Narcotics Team (HIDTA-TNT); the U.S. Postal Inspection Service; the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General; and the Coast Guard Investigation Service.  The prosecution is part of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force National Heroin Initiative to combat the opioid crisis.

U.S. District Court
California Northern District (Oakland)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:19-cr-00491-JST All Defendants

Case title: USA v. Silcox

Magistrate judge case number: 4:19-mj-71534-MAG
Date Filed: 09/26/2019
Date Terminated: 05/28/2021

Plaintiff
USA represented by Sarah Elizabeth Griswold
U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of California
150 Almaden Blvd.
Suite 900
San Jose, CA 95113
408-535-5061
Fax: 408-535-5081
Email: Sarah.Griswold@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Assistant US AttorneyKaren D. Beausey
U.S. Attorney’s Office
450 Golden Gate Avenue
Box 36055
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 436-6598
Fax: (415) 436-7234
Email: karen.beausey@usdoj.gov
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
01/14/2021 41 ORDER granting 40 Stipulation to Continue Sentencing as to James Heyward Silcox III (1) Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 14, 2021. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/14/2021)
04/16/2021 43 CLERK’S NOTICE SETTING IN-COURTROOM ZOOM HEARING. Sentencing set for 4/23/2021 09:30 AM in Oakland, Courtroom 1, 4th Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. All counsel shall appear in person. All persons attending the hearing must take the pre-screening questionnaire here: http://cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CAND-COVID-19-Pre-Screening-Questionnaire.pdf This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.

Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts .gov/jst

General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.

Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

Sentencing set for 4/23/2021 09:30 AM in Oakland, Courtro om 1, 4th Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2021) (Entered: 04/16/2021)

04/16/2021 44 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE SENTENCING as to James Heyward Silcox, III, filed by USA, James Heyward Silcox, III. (Griswold, Sarah) (Filed on 4/16/2021) Modified on 4/19/2021 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/16/2021)
04/19/2021 45 Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 44 Stipulation To Continue Sentencing as to James Heyward Silcox III (1).(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2021) (Entered: 04/19/2021)
04/19/2021 46 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING. Sentencing set for 5/28/2021 09:30 AM in Oakland, – Videoconference Only before Judge Jon S. Tigar. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.

Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jst

General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.

Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

Sentencing set for 5/28/2021 09:30 AM in Oakland, – Videoconference Only before Judge Jon S. Tigar. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is n o document associated with this entry.) (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2021) (Entered: 04/19/2021)

04/19/2021 47 MOTION for a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture by USA as to James Heyward Silcox, III. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Preliminary Order of Forfeiture)(Beausey, Karen) (Filed on 4/19/2021) Modified on 4/20/2021 (jlmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/19/2021)
05/21/2021 48 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM by USA as to James Heyward Silcox, III (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Griswold, Sarah) (Filed on 5/21/2021) (Entered: 05/21/2021)
05/21/2021 49 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM by James Heyward Silcox, III (Levinsohn, Michael) (Filed on 5/21/2021) (Entered: 05/21/2021)
05/28/2021 50 Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 47 Motion for Forfeiture of Property as to James Heyward Silcox III (1).(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2021) (Entered: 05/28/2021)
05/28/2021 51 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jon S. Tigar: Sentencing held on 5/28/2021 for James Heyward Silcox, III (1). Committed to a term of 3 years probation, to be served concurrently with terms imposed on Count(s): 1, 2 and 3; $300.00 special assessment; $5,000.00 fine (Court Reporter: Raynee Mercado). (jlmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2021) (Entered: 05/28/2021)
06/02/2021 52 JUDGMENT in a Criminal Case as to James Heyward Silcox, III. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 2, 2021. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2021) (Entered: 06/02/2021)

Heyward Silcox III, 22 Tulip Lane, Apt. 307, Cocoa Beach, disciplinary revocation with leave to seek readmission after five years, effective 30 days following a May 6 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2018)

On or about June 26, 2020, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Silcox pleaded guilty to three counts of illegal importation of a controlled substance, specifically the Schedule IV narcotic Tramadol.

Prior to his plea, Silcox successfully completed a chemical dependency treatment program on March 6, 2020.

Silcox has also signed a two-year contract with Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc.

(Case No: SC21-290)

OAKLAND — Federal prosecutors have secured a grand jury indictment against a U.S. Coast Guard commander who was arrested and charged in an alleged scheme to smuggle drugs in from Singapore.

James Silcox III, 41, was indicted Sept. 26 on three charges of importation of a Schedule IV narcotic, court records show. The criminal complaint against him alleges he received three shipments of Tramadol, a controlled substance and narcotic, to post office boxes over the summer.

Schedule IV drugs are defined by the federal government as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence.

According to the criminal complaint, on July 11, an 865-gram package from Singapore headed for an Alameda post office box was flagged by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers at the U.S. Postal Service’s international mail facility at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport. Officers at the postal service’s San Francisco airmail facility intercepted another 650 200-milligram tablet Tramadol package from Singapore on Aug. 28, before receiving another package Sept. 13 that held 458 grams of Tramadol.

Silcox has requested the services of the federal public defender’s office, but prosecutors are fighting the move, saying that

James Silcox and his wife — who is also a commander in the U.S. Coast Guard — make a combined $300,000 in “annual take-home pay” and are building a retirement home in Florida.

“That a defendant would rather not spend his money on an attorney does not mean he is ‘financially unable’ to obtain counsel,”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Griswold wrote in a memorandum opposing Silcox’s retention of a public defender.

Silcox pleaded not guilty to the charges at a Sept. 30 arraignment hearing, court records show. He was released from jail the same day the charges were filed, according to the docket.

Public Defender Removed from Case

Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Winn Levinsohn

Emma Silcox, Lieutenant Commander, United States Coast Guard

Board of Director at the National Women’s Council. The Council is dedicated to developing and empowering women of all background, classes, and ages.

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.



Federal Judges

You’re Too Early to Dismiss the Judicial Complaint Sayeth the All-Gal Panel at Eleventh Circuit

The magistrate judge sua sponte dismissed Makere’s complaint because, as an administrative law judge, Judge Early is entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

Published

on

Judicial Immunity Delayed Due to Hasty Dismissal

DEC 30, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: DEC 31, 2021

Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Elias Makere appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his pro se amended complaint alleging violations of his civil rights un- der 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on the ground that the defendant was entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

Makere argues that the district court erred when it sua sponte dismissed his complaint against Judge E. Gary Early—who had ruled previously against Makere in an employment discrimination case—because Makere paid the filing fee for his complaint, Judge Early had not been served process, and the district court lacked the authority to assert absolute judicial immunity on behalf of Judge Early.

After de novo review,1 we agree with Makere that the district court erred by sua sponte dismissing his complaint at this stage.2

1 The record is unclear as to what rule or statute the district court was relying upon when it sua sponte dismissed Makere’s complaint—it appears that the district court may have been proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) or possibly Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). S

ua sponte dismissals under § 1915(e)(2) or Rule 12(b)(6) are reviewed de novo.

Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159–60 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that we review a district court’s sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e)(2) de novo);

Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 872 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that we review de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.

2 Because we vacate and remand this case due to the district court’s procedural error, we deny as moot Makere’s accompanying motion to take judicial notice of twelve public records relating to the merits of his case.

In February 2021, Makere filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against Judge Early, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

Consequently, the case was referred to a magistrate judge for further processing.3

The magistrate judge then issued an order explaining that Makere’s complaint and IFP motion could not be considered because they failed to comply with the local rules — both documents lacked the required handwritten signature and the IFP motion was not submitted on the correct form.

The magistrate judge directed the clerk’s office to send Makere the correct IFP form and ordered that Makere file an amended complaint and amended IFP motion that complied with the referenced local rules by a certain date.

The magistrate judge cautioned that “[f]ailure to comply with this

[c]ourt [o]rder may result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action.”

3 Although the record does not reflect the basis for referring the case to the magistrate judge, we presume that the district court was operating under its Local Rule 5.3, which provides that where a party files a civil action and moves to proceed IFP, “the Clerk must open the case and refer any motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to an assigned judge.”

N.D. Fla. Local Rule 5.3.

Furthermore, under the Local Rules, a party seeking to proceed IFP is prohibited from serving process on the defendants until the district court “enters an order authorizing” service. Id. Rule 4.1(A).

Thus, Judge Early was not served at this time.

When Makere failed to file the amended pleadings by the specified date, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the district court dismiss the case for Makere’s failure to comply with its prior order.

Approximately twelve days later, Makere filed an amended complaint, objected to the magistrate judge’s R&R, and, on the following day, paid the filing fee in full.

On April 9, 2021, the magis- trate judge, recognizing that Makere had filed an amended com- plaint and paid the filing fee, treated Makere’s objections to the R&R as a motion for reconsideration, which it granted, and vacated the R&R.

Later that same day, however, the magistrate judge issued a second R&R recommending that the district court sua sponte dis- miss Makere’s complaint because, as an administrative law judge, Judge Early is entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

While the magistrate judge did not reference 28 U.S.C. § 1915, presumably — as there is nothing in the record that indicates that the defendant was ever served or filed his own motion to dismiss—the magistrate judge was screening the case pursuant to § 1915, which governs in forma pauperis proceedings.4

4 Section 1915 provides that in IFP proceedings, the court:

shall dismiss the case . . . if the court determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal—(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2).

Although the magistrate judge did not specify the § 1915 provision under which he proceeded, his repeated references to judicial immunity suggest § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

Makere objected to the second R&R, arguing that he filed an amended complaint and paid the filing fee, and that the magistrate judge failed to cite a rule or statute that authorized the sua sponte dismissal of his civil action under these circumstances.

The district court adopted the second R&R it in a one-page order over Makere’s objections and dismissed the case.

The district court erred when it dismissed this case. After paying the filing fee, Makere was not subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915,5 and the district court could not sua sponte dismiss his case under the screening provisions of § 1915.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)- (iii).

Furthermore, to the extent the district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim—because again it is not clear what rule or statute the district court was proceeding under—we have prohibited such dismissals where, as here, the defendant has not filed an answer (indeed, here, the defendant was never served), “and the district court failed to provide the plaintiff with notice of its intent to dismiss or an opportunity to respond.”

See American United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1057 (11th Cir. 2007); Jefferson Fourteenth Assocs. v. Wometco de Puerto Rico, Inc., 695 F.2d 524, 527 (11th Cir. 1983).

In short, the district court erred in sua sponte dismissing the case at this preliminary stage of the proceedings.6

Accordingly, we vacate and remand the case.

VACATED 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.



Continue Reading

Bankers

Another Theft of Funds Case, This Time Against SunTrust Bank

Plaintiffs, domiciled in Venezuela, assert that Truist (Sunbank) was negligent in allegedly permitting fraud and theft of funds from their bank account.

Published

on

New case. Bookmark for updates.

DE LA RIVA v. SUNTRUST BANK

(1:21-cv-24412)

District Court, S.D. Florida

DEC 21, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: DEC 24, 2021

AMENDED NOTICE OF REMOVAL1

COMES NOW Defendant, Truist Bank, formerly known as SunTrust Bank (“Truist”), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446, appearing specially so as to preserve any and all defenses available under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any and all defenses under the federal laws of bankruptcy and specifically preserving the right to demand arbitration pursuant to contractual agreements and the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq., and hereby gives notice of the removal of this action from the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. In support of this notice of removal, Truist states as follows:

1 The amended notice of removal clarifies the Plaintiff’s country of domicile.

INTRODUCTION

  1. Plaintiffs, Shedir de La Riva, Claudia Gil, Adriana Gil C. and Eduardo La Riva C. (“Plaintiffs”) commenced this action by filing a complaint against Truist Bank, formerly known as SunTrust Bank, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case Number 2021- 025111-CA-04 (24) on or about November 12, 2021.
  2. Plaintiffs’ complaint asserts that Truist was negligent in allegedly permitting fraud and theft of funds from their bank ¶ 20.
  3. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs seek to recover damages from Truist with in an amount exceeding $271,020.00. Compl. ¶
  4. This Court has jurisdiction over all of Plaintiffs’ claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which provides federal district courts with original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, and where the action is between citizens of different states. See 28 S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

A.                 The Parties are Completely Diverse.

  1. Complete diversity exists between Plaintiffs and Truist in this matter.
  2. The Plaintiffs are citizens of and domiciled in Venezuela.
  3. Truist Bank is organized under the laws of North Carolina with its principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Truist Financial Corporation.
  4. Truist Financial Corporation was formed by the merger of SunTrust Banks, Inc. with and into BB&T Corporation on December 6, 2019, the merger of SunTrust Bank Holding Company into BB&T Corporation on December 7, 2019, and BB&T Corporation’s subsequent change of its name to Truist Financial Corporation (also on December 7, 2019). On December 7, 2019, SunTrust Bank merged with and into Branch Banking and Trust Company. Branch Banking and Trust Company was renamed Truist Bank. SunTrust Bank was a wholly-owned subsidiary of SunTrust Banks, Inc.
  5. Truist Financial Corporation is organized under the laws of North Carolina with its principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina.
  6. Accordingly, the parties are completely diverse, as Plaintiffs are citizens of Venezuela, and Truist is a citizen of North Carolina.

B.        The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000.

  1. Removal is also proper because the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold, exclusive of interest and costs.
  2. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs seek to recover against Truist damages in excess of $271,020.00 under two causes of action sounding in negligence and gross negligence/recklessness. See Compl. ¶ 15-32.
  3. The amount in controversy therefore exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
  4. Accordingly, this case is properly removable because it is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

ADOPTION AND RESERVATION OF DEFENSES

  1. Nothing in this notice of removal shall be interpreted as a waiver or relinquishment of any of Truist’s rights to assert any defense or affirmative matter, including, but not limited to, the defenses of: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the person; (2) improper venue; (3) insufficiency of process; (4) insufficiency of service of process; (5) improper joinder of claims and/or parties; (6) failure to state a claim; (7) the mandatory arbitrability of some or all of the claims; (8) failure to join indispensable parties; or (9) any other pertinent defense available under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, any state or federal statute, or otherwise.

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

  1. This case is a civil action within the meaning of 28 S.C. § 1441(a).
  2. True and correct copies of “all process, pleadings, and orders” filed to date are attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, in conformity with 28 S.C. § 1446(a). There has been no other process, pleading, or order served upon Truist to date in this case.
  3. This Notice of Removal is being filed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, within thirty days from September 22, 2021, the date Truist was served with a copy of the See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
  4. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, is the court and division embracing the place where this action is pending in state court.
  5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), contemporaneously with the filing of this notice of removal, Truist filed a copy of same with the clerk of the Clerk of Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida, as well as a notice of filing notice of removal. Written notice of the filing of this notice of removal has also been served upon the Plaintiff.
  6. Truist reserves the right to supplement this Notice of Removal by adding any jurisdictional defenses which may independently support a basis for removal.
  7. To the extent remand is sought by Plaintiff or otherwise visited by this Court, Truist requests the opportunity to brief the issues and submit additional arguments and evidence, and to be heard at oral argument.
  8. All defendants consent to the removal of this cause of action.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Truist prays that this Court take jurisdiction of this action and issue all necessary orders and process to remove this action from the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

DATED: December 22, 2021.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nicholas S. Agnello                                               

Nicholas S. Agnello, Esq. (FL Bar No. 90844)
BURR & FORMAN LLP
350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1440
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

Telephone: (954) 414-6200
Facsimile: (954) 414-6201

Primary Email: FLService@burr.com
Secondary Email: nagnello@burr.com
Secondary Email: rzamora@burr.com

 

David Elliott, Esq. (FL Bar No. 94237)
BURR & FORMAN LLP
420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 244-5631
Facsimile: (205) 244-5631

Primary Email: delliott@burr.com
Secondary Email: cwingate@burr.com
Secondary Email: sfoshee@burr.com

Counsels for Defendant Truist Bank, formerly known as SunTrust Bank, Inc.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

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

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

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



U.S. District Court
Southern District of Florida (Miami)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:21-cv-24412-JAL

DE LA RIVA et al v. SUNTRUST BANK
Assigned to: Judge Joan A. Lenard

Case in other court:  11th Judicial Circuit in and For Miami-Dade Co, Fl, 2021- 025111-CA-04 (24)

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal

Date Filed: 12/21/2021
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
SHEDIMAR DE LA RIVA represented by Victor K. Rones
Rones & Navarro
16105 NE 18th Avenue
North Miami Beach, FL 33162
305-945-6522
Email: vrones@victorkronespa.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
Claudia Gil represented by Victor K. Rones
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
ADRIANA GIL C. represented by Victor K. Rones
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
EDUARDO LA RIVA C. represented by Victor K. Rones
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
SUNTRUST BANK represented by David Alan Elliott
Burr & Forman LLP
420 North 20th Street
Suite 3400
Birmingham, AL 35203
(205) 251-3000
Fax: (205) 458-5100
Email: delliott@burr.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDNicholas Steven Agnello
Burr & Forman LLP
350 E. Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1420
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
954 414-6202
Fax: 954-414-6201
Email: nagnello@burr.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
12/21/2021 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (STATE COURT COMPLAINT – Complaint) Filing fee $ 402.00 receipt number AFLSDC-15266134, filed by SUNTRUST BANK. (No Answer filed/No Motion to Dismiss filed) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Docket Sheet, # 3 Exhibit State Court File)(Agnello, Nicholas) Text Modified on 12/21/2021 (scn). (Entered: 12/21/2021)
12/21/2021 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Joan A. Lenard.Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent.

Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (scn) (Entered: 12/21/2021)

12/22/2021 3 AMENDED NOTICE OF REMOVAL by SUNTRUST BANK re 1 Notice of Removal (State Court Complaint), Amended (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Agnello, Nicholas) Modified on 12/22/2021 (dj). (Entered: 12/22/2021)
Continue Reading

Debt Collector

The Falcons Land in Front of a New Federal Judge After Altman Decamps

This is a newly removed foreclosure proceeding which is now before Judge Darrin Gayles, SDFL.

Published

on

FALCON v. Bank Of America, N.A.

(1:21-cv-24250)

District Court, S.D. Florida

DEC 3, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: DEC 18, 2021

LIF is trackin’ this removed foreclosure case. Bookmark for updates.

Judge Roy Altman Florida Self Recuses in this case.

Roy Kalman Altman (b. 1982) is a judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On May 7, 2018, President Donald Trump (R) nominated Altman to a seat on this court. The United States Senate confirmed Altman on April 4, 2019, by a vote of 66-33.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

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

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

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



U.S. District Court
Southern District of Florida (Miami)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:21-cv-24250-DPG

FALCON et al v. Bank Of America, N.A.
Assigned to: Judge Darrin P. Gayles

Case in other court:  11th Judicial Circuit Court Miami-Dade, 21-024076-CA-01

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal

Date Filed: 12/03/2021
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
ZENAIDA JOSEFINA FALCON represented by Martin George Prego
PREGO Law Group PLLC
2125 BISCAYNE BLVD, STE 350
Miami, FL 33137
3054986114
Email: mprego@pregolawgroup.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
IRAMA JOSEFINA FALCON represented by Martin George Prego
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
RHAYZA JOSEFINA FALCON represented by Martin George Prego
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Bank Of America, N.A. represented by Marc Thomas Parrino
Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo, P.A.
Courthouse Tower- 25th Floor
44 West Flagler Street
Miami, FL 33130
305/379-0400
Fax: 305/379-9626
Email: mtp@lgplaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDShannon Dobel
Liebler, Gonzalez, and Portuondo P.A.
44 W. Flagler Street
Suite 2500
Miami, FL 33130
305-379-0400
Fax: 305-379-9626
Email: scd@lgplaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
12/15/2021 6 Certificate of Other Affiliates/Corporate Disclosure Statement by Bank Of America, N.A. identifying Other Affiliate BAC North America Holding Company, Other Affiliate Bank of America Corporation, Other Affiliate NB Holdings Corporation for Bank Of America, N.A. (Dobel, Shannon) (Entered: 12/15/2021)
12/13/2021 5 PAPERLESS ORDER REQUIRING JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT AND PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER. Pursuant to S.D. Fla. Local Rule 16.1, on or before December 27, 2021, the parties shall prepare and file a Joint Scheduling Report, as well as Certificates of Interested Parties and Corporate Disclosure Statements.The parties shall also file a Proposed Scheduling Order, adhering to the format and guidance of the attached form. If the parties deviate in any way from that format and guidance, they shall contemporaneously submit a written explanation, which provides their purported justification for each and every deviation. If the parties fail to submit such written explanation, the Court may enter a Scheduling Order that does not take into account the parties’ proposed dates.

Failure to comply with this Order shall be grounds for dismissal without prejudice and without further notice. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 12/13/2021. (jsi) (Entered: 12/13/2021)

12/10/2021 4 MOTION to Dismiss the State Court Complaint contained within the Notice of Removal 1 Notice of Removal (State Court Complaint), by Bank Of America, N.A.. Responses due by 12/27/2021 (Dobel, Shannon) (Entered: 12/10/2021)
12/08/2021 3 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Judge Roy K. Altman recused. Case reassigned to Judge Darrin P. Gayles for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 12/7/2021. See attached document for full details. (yar) (Entered: 12/08/2021)
12/03/2021 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Roy K. Altman and Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid.Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent.

Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (jbs) (Entered: 12/06/2021)

12/03/2021 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (STATE COURT COMPLAINT – COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL) Filing fee $ 402.00 receipt number AFLSDC-15219474, filed by Bank Of America, N.A..(Dobel, Shannon)(No Answer/Motion to Dismiss Filed) Modified text on 12/6/2021 (jbs). (Entered: 12/03/2021)
Continue Reading

Most Read

Copyright © 2022 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