Connect with us

Florida

This Florida Bar Complaint Confirms The Required Complaint Threshold for Reporting Abusive Lawyer Misconduct

Florida Attorney Houson LaFrance was heard saying in court he was tired of “all the f** racists in this town.” which earns him a Fl. Bar complaint.

Published

on

JUN 8, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUN 19, 2021

COMPLAINT

The Florida Bar, complainant, files this Complaint against Houson R. Lafrance, respondent, pursuant to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and alleges:

1. Respondent is and was at all times mentioned herein a member of The Florida Bar admitted on September 30, 2014 and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida.

2. Respondent resided and practiced law in Broward County, Florida, at all times material.

3. The Florida Bar Board of Governors, at a duly constituted meeting in January 2021, found probable cause to file this complaint pursuant to Rule 3-7.5(c)(7) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

4. Respondent represented Mark Metellus in the case styled State v. Metellus, Case No. 17-CF-259, in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Martin County, Florida.

5. During the pendency of the trial, respondent stepped out into the hallway of the courthouse.

6. He was heard by the court deputy making a derogatory statement about the witnesses in the case.

7. After the jury had returned a guilty verdict against Mr. Metellus, as respondent was leaving the courtroom, but prior to exiting, respondent stated that

he was tired of “all the f** racists in this town.”

8. By the conduct set forth above, respondent violated R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-4.3

[The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice may constitute a cause for discipline whether the act is committed in the course of the lawyer’s relations as a lawyer or otherwise, whether committed within Florida or outside the state of Florida, and whether the act is a felony or a misdemeanor.];

and

4-8.4(d) [A lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic.]

WHEREFORE, The Florida Bar prays respondent will be appropriately disciplined in accordance with the provisions of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar as amended.

Navin A. Ramnath,
Bar Counsel
The Florida Bar
Ft. Lauderdale Branch Office
Lake Shore Plaza II
1300 Concord Terrace, Suite 130
Sunrise, Florida 33323
(954) 835-0233
Florida Bar No. 41979
nramnath@floridabar.org
akline@floridabar.org

Patricia Ann Toro Savitz,
Staff Counsel
The Florida Bar
651 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-2300
(850) 561-5839
Florida Bar No. 559547 psavitz@floridabar.org

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that this document has been efiled with The Honorable John Tomasino, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida, with a copy provided via email to David Bill Rothman, at dbr@rothmanlawyers.com; and that a copy has been furnished by United States Mail via certified mail No. 7017 1450 0000 7821 0940, return receipt requested to David Bill Rothman, whose record bar address is 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 2770, Miami, FL 33131-5300 and via email to Navin A. Ramnath, Bar Counsel, nramnath@floridabar.org, akline@floridabar.org on this 8th day of June, 2021.

 

Patricia Ann Toro Savitz Staff Counsel

 

NOTICE OF TRIAL COUNSEL AND DESIGNATION OF PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the trial counsel in this matter is Navin A Ramnath, Bar Counsel, whose address, telephone number and primary email address are The Florida Bar, Ft. Lauderdale Branch Office, Lake Shore Plaza II1300 Concord Terrace, Suite 130Sunrise, Florida 33323, (954) 835-0233 and nramnath@floridabar.org; and akline@floridabar.org.

Respondent need not address pleadings, correspondence, etc. in this matter to anyone other than trial counsel and to Staff Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, psavitz@floridabar.org.

MANDATORY ANSWER NOTICE

RULE 3-7.6(h)(2), RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR, PROVIDES THAT A RESPONDENT SHALL ANSWER A COMPLAINT.

We Are a Law Firm That Gets Results

Houson Lafrance is a smart, zealous and passionate attorney. Houson’s results in the courtroom has garnered him numerous awards that only a very small percentage of attorney’s ever receive including:

2020 Super Lawyers Rising Stars – Top 2.5% of Attorneys in Florida

A dynamic and persuasive trial lawyer, Houson captivates clients and jurors alike. After performing his closing argument, he has drawn praise from opponents, judges and jurors about his abilities. He represents people who are accused of violating the law and individuals injured by the negligence of others.

Houson graduated in 2014 with honors from St. Thomas University School of Law. While in law school he was a member of all three honors organizations: St. Thomas Law Review, St. Thomas University School of Law Moot Court and St. Thomas University School of Law Trial Team.

After graduation from law school and passing the bar in 2014, Houson began his career at the Broward Public Defender’s Office as an Assistant Public Defender. He handled 1000s of criminal cases ranging from misdemeanors, DUI and Felonies. He had an impressive trial record and was able to garner numerous Not Guilty verdicts on impossible cases showing early his natural abilities as a trial lawyer.

In 2016, Houson was offered and accepted a position as partner in a South Florida firm that represented gaming, petroleum and religious corporations. As a partner, Houson handled all criminal and litigation matters within the firm and provided strategic planning for all litigation cases.

In July 2019, Houson decided to open Houson R. Lafrance P.A. a criminal defense and family law firm, dedicated to representing people against the government and insurance companies.

Houson’s hobbies include mentorship, reading, college football and writing books. His favorite quote is “Excellence Demands Consistency.”

SMART, ZEALOUS & PASSIONATE CRIMINAL DEFENSE & PERSONAL INJURY

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
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Appellate Circuit

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

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

Published

on

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 20-13674
Non-Argument Calendar

JAMES BUCKMAN, MAURICE SYMONETTE,

versus
LANCASTER MORTGAGE CO.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

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

SECURITY AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

U.S. TREASURY,

Defendants-Appellees,

ONE WEST BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

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

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

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

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

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

After review, we affirm.

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

The district court denied the motions.

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

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

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

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

I. Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This appeal followed.2

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

II. Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324.

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

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

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

We have repeatedly condemned the use of shotgun pleadings.

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

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

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

Id.

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

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

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

Id.

Consequently, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

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

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

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



Continue Reading

Florida

September was a Monster Month for Fl. Bar Disciplinary Cases. So Much So they Issued Two Separate Lists

On Sep 1, 2021, the Florida Bar Disciplined 10 lawyers and on Sep 15, another 17. That’s 27 lawyers in one month.

Published

on

September Discipline Part II by the Bar

SEP 15, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 6, 2021

The Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 17 attorneys, disbarring six, suspending seven, and reprimanding four. One attorney was also ordered to pay restitution.

Rasheed Karim Allen-Dawson, P.O. Box 135819, Clermont, suspended for 91 days and conditional probation for one year effective 30 days following an August 19 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2011)

Allen-Dawson failed to provide a client with competent representation in a family law matter and pursued frivolous litigation.

Following the filing of the Bar complaint, Allen-Dawson made an impermissible agreement with the complaining client for a full refund conditioned on the client withdrawing the Bar complaint.

In a second matter, Allen-Dawson engaged in a course of conduct where he failed to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, failed to diligently and competently handle multiple client matters, and certified to the court that good-faith conferences had occurred when, in fact, they had not, resulting in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, imposing disciplinary sanctions against him which resulted in 12 months of conditional probation by the Federal Court.

(Case Nos.: SC21-472 and SC21-504)

Referee;

Gerald P. Hill II
Polk County Courthouse
P.O. Box 9000, Drawer J109
Bartow, FL 33831-9000

Charles McCormack Caldwell II, 801 W. Romana St., Suite C, Pensacola, public reprimand by publication and attendance at Ethics School effective immediately following an August 12 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2010)

Caldwell worked for a Canadian trademark company representing clients in pending trademark applications and issued trademark registrations before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The company’s practice was to enter Caldwell’s electronic signature on trademark documents before filing with the USPTO.

When Caldwell was contacted by the USPTO and advised that he was violating its regulations, he cooperated fully and severed all ties with the trademark company.

The USPTO imposed a public reprimand and 12 months probation.

(Case No: SC21-230)

Joe Luis Castrofort, 1906 E. Robinson St., Orlando, suspended for 60 days with attendance at Ethics School effective 30 days following an August 5 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2001)

Castrofort represented a defendant in a criminal case where the defendant told Castrofort that someone had messaged him, claiming to be the alleged victim, and had requested $15,000 in exchange for her agreement not to testify against him in the case.

At the time, there was a court order that defendant have no contact with the alleged victim.

Castrofort involved private investigators who directed the client to message the alleged victim and have her appear at a designated location to collect the money.

Though there was no actual money involved, the client watched from a distance as the alleged victim entered the client’s unoccupied vehicle and searched for the money.

The client and alleged victim communicated using a messaging application and the private investigators recorded the encounter.

At the time, Castrofort did not fully appreciate that his client’s actions could be viewed as a violation of the no-contact order and expressed remorse for the misconduct.

(Case No: SC21-1100)

Kevin Keenan Chase, 709 Laurel Way, Casselberry, public reprimand by publication effective immediately following an August 6 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 1994)

Chase was held in contempt of the Court’s order dated November 12, 2020, for failing to timely comply with Rule 3-5.1(h) requirements of notifying clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals of his suspension.

(Case No: SC21-799)

Andrean Rose Eaton, 2020 N.E. 163rd St., Suite 300, North Miami Beach, suspended for 91 days effective 30 days following an August 6 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 1995)

Eaton was held in contempt of the court’s order dated March 5, 2020, for failing to comply with Rule 3-5.1(h) requirements of notifying clients, opposing counsel and tribunals of his suspension and for failing to comply with the conditions of her probation.

(Case No: SC21-772)

William Cater Elliott, P.O. Box 43343, Vestavia, Alabama, disbarred effective Nunc pro tunc to January 16, 2020, the date of his felony suspension following a June 17, 2021, court order.

(Admitted to Practice: 1989)

On July 18, 2019, Elliott was convicted of Organized Fraud over $50,000, adjudicated guilty, and sentenced to a two-year prison term followed by eight years’ probation.

Elliott deposited a counterfeit U.S. Treasury check into his law firm business account for $287,000.50, and withdrew a substantial amount, leaving the bank with a financial loss of $98,813.33.

Elliott was felony suspended on January 16, 2020.

After an appeal to the First DCA that was denied, the appellate court issued its mandate in March 2021.

(Case No: SC19-2094)

Michael James Foley, 644 Orange Belt Loop, Winter Garden, suspended for 91 days effective 30 days following an August 19 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2002)

Foley, while employed by Liberty Law Team, failed to exercise reasonable supervision over the paralegal assigned to work on a client’s criminal appeal, allowing the paralegal to engage in impermissible activities such as giving legal advice, and making misrepresentations to the client and the client’s family.

Foley’s failure to supervise further enabled his paralegal to perpetrate a fraud on the client and the client’s family and collect fees and costs that were misappropriated by unknown persons at Liberty Law Team.

(Case No: SC21-311)

Referee:

Michael C. Heisey

Dana Marie Fragakis, 2150 Goodlette Rd. N., FL 6, Naples, suspended for 90 days and attendance at The Florida Bar Professionalism Workshop effective 30 days following an August 12 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2000)

Fragakis became a candidate for a vacant county court seat in Palm Beach County in June 2016.

During a run-off election, Fragakis hired a campaign manager that promoted her candidacy by making disparaging statements about her opponent in emails, statements to the media, and a webpage.

Fragakis initially defended her campaign’s actions but ultimately admitted that her conduct was a violation of the Judicial Canons and apologized to her opponent.

Fragakis was thereafter removed from judicial office.

(Case No: SC12-1122)

Ronald Andersen Hurst, Jr., P.O. Box 540262, Greenacres, public reprimand by publication effective August 5 by court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2003)

Hurst was court-appointed to file an Amended Motion to Withdraw Plea Agreement on behalf of a criminal defendant.

Hurst made minimal efforts to communicate with the client to determine the basis for the motion. Since Hurst did not receive a response from the client, he did not file the subject motion.

(Case Nos: SC21-1098 and SC21-1100)

Eric Otto Husby, 306 S Blvd., Tampa, suspended for 90 days and directed to attend Ethics School effective 30 days following a July 29 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2004)

Husby neglected his client’s matter and failed to communicate adequately in one matter, and failed to provide competent representation in the second. Husby failed to timely respond to the Bar in the first matter.

(Case No: SC20-1837)

Referee;

Honorable Alicia Polk

Andrew John Jones, 5200 South U.S. Highway 17/92, Casselberry, disbarred immediately following an August 19 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2006)

On June 3, 2021, Jones pled guilty to Child Abuse and Tampering with Physical Evidence, both third-degree felonies.

(Case No: SC21-894)

Referee;

Michael J. McNicholas

Frederick Joseph Keitel III, P.O. Box 3243, Palm Beach, permanently disbarred effective immediately following an August 12 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 1991)

Keitel represented his own corporations in numerous cases during which he made unfounded, unethical, and disparaging attacks against many different judges.

He further engaged in incivility and unprofessionalism in a deposition, attempted to hinder and delay discovery, engaged in a conflict of interest, and violated orders entered by the bankruptcy court.

Keitel continued to engage in such disparaging conduct during the disciplinary proceedings.

(Case No: SC18-546)

John Chandler Ross, 1025 Indian River Ave., Titusville, disbarred effective immediately following an August 5 court order because he is currently suspended.

(Admitted to practice: 1983)

Ross was held in contempt of the court’s order dated November 24, 2020, for failing to comply with Rule 3-5.1(h) requirements of notifying clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals of his suspension.

(Case No: SC21-807)

Roger S. Rathbun, 9380 N.W. 13th St., Plantation, disbarred effective immediately following an August 12 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2000)

Rathbun continued to engage in the active practice of law after being suspended from the practice of law by order dated January 9, 2020.

(Case No: SC20-623)

Douglas Alan Lopp, 19420 Sandy Springs Cir., Lutz, disbarred effective immediately following an August 11 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 1995)

Lopp was held in contempt of the court’s order dated September 20, 2020, for his repeated failure to respond to the court’s previous order and for his failure to notify clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals of his suspension.

(Case No: SC20-1026 and SC21-852)

Patrick James Thompson, 201 Hilda St., Suite 23, Kissimmee, public reprimand by publication and completion of Ethics School effective immediately following an August 26 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 2007)

Thompson negotiated with timeshare resorts on behalf of clients to assist the clients with an exit from their timeshare contracts and/or their timeshare maintenance fees.

Thompson improperly shared legal fees with a nonlawyer, who was a corporate officer of his law firm, Timeshare Lawyers, Inc.

Thompson was not admitted to practice law in any jurisdiction other than Florida but the resorts and the clients he represented sometimes were located outside of Florida.

In addition, Thompson did not sufficiently communicate with two clients about their cases, and he was not diligent in handling their cases.

(Case No: SC21-588)

Peter James Yanowitch, 232 Andalusia Ave., Suite 202, Coral Gables, suspended for 90 days and ordered to pay restitution in the total amount of $100,000 effective 30 days following an August 5 court order.

(Admitted to practice: 1982)

Yanowitch failed to maintain cost money in his trust account, instead, he applied it to fees deemed to be excessive, and without providing monthly invoices to the client.

(Case No: SC21-1090)

As an official arm of the Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the more than 109,000 members of The Florida Bar. Key discipline case files that are public record are posted to attorneys’ individual online Florida Bar profiles. Information on the discipline system and how to file a complaint are available at www.floridabar.org/attorneydiscipline.
Court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam. Attorneys suspended for periods of 91 days and longer must undergo a rigorous process to regain their law licenses including proving rehabilitation. Disciplinary revocation is tantamount to disbarment.

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

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

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

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



Continue Reading

Debt Collector

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

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

Published

on

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

(8:21-cv-02130)

District Court, M.D. Florida

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

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

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

UPDATE: OCT 7, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOUR DONATION(S) WILL HELP US:

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

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

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



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

 

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

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

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal

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

 

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

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

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

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

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal

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

 

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

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

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

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

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

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal

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

 

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

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