Procedural Background

29 août 2021 Non Par sbelcourt

Procedural Background

District Court Procedures

The FTC filed a grievance against Lanier, Robles, Rennick, Lanier Law, and also the D.C. organizations, alleging which they had sold and marketed home loan assistance relief solutions in breach of part 5(a) for the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 4 the home loan Assistance Relief solutions Rule (legislation O) (MARS Rule), 5 additionally the Telemarketing product product Sales Rule (TSR). 6 particularly, the FTC alleged the defendants had misrepresented their capability to have home loan improvements, charged consumers advance fees, neglected to consist of disclosures that are required their communications, initiated calls in breach regarding the TSR, and didn’t spend the necessary charges to gain access to the nationwide Do-Not-Call list.

The FTC relocated for summary judgment, as well as the district court granted the movement. The court figured the defendants violated area 5 of this FTCA by simply making product misrepresentations that caused consumer that is substantial and also by breaking the MARS Rule together with TSR. The region court determined that the defendants violated the MARS Rule if they demanded and received costs with regards to their solutions ahead of doing any work; misrepresented the probability of getting that loan modification, particularly pertaining to reductions in monthly premiums, interest levels, and major balances; and neglected to make appropriate disclosures. Finally, the court determined that Lanier had been independently accountable for the functions associated with the entities that are corporate. 7 The region court determined that their authority and control of the defendants and their understanding of their methods put him “squarely during the center with this misleading enterprise,” making him individually responsible for the misconduct. Purchase at 72-74 (Doc. 281).

On August 12, 2016, the region court joined a permanent injunction against Lanier along with his co-defendants. The region court additionally entered judgment in support of the FTC within the quantity of $13,586,713. This really is Lanier’s appeal. 8

Appellate Procedures

On October 10, 2016, Lanier filed a notice that is timely of, for which he described himself while the entities comprising Lanier Law due to the fact “Lanier Defendants”:

Defendant, Lanier Law, et al., hereinafter the “Lanier Defendants,” hereby appeals into the united states of america Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit through the last judgment of this District Court dated August 12, 2016 additionally the Order of July 7, 2016 ․

Notice of Appeal (Doc. 303). Following the appeal ended up being docketed, Lanier attempted to enter a look on the part of himself and Lanier Law in this Court, nevertheless the Clerk came back the shape unfiled because Lanier’s application for admission when you look at the Eleventh Circuit club have been rejected.

As a result, on 29, 2016, Lanier filed an amended notice of appeal in the district court november:

Defendant, Michael W. Lanier, Esq, separately, ․ hereby appeals into the united states of america Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ․ Lanier is admitted to train prior to the Federal District Court, but had been rejected admission to apply when you look at payday loans North Palm Beach the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals also as pro hac vice admission here.

Am. Notice of Appeal (Doc. 309). In a page to your Court, Lanier explained that their amended appeal was designed to “reflect” which he would “represent himself, pro se, and therefore none associated with the corporate (Lanier) defendants would join him when you look at the appeal.” Lanier Law ended up being dismissed through the appeal.

Whilst the appeal ended up being pending, this Court asked the events to deal with whether Lanier’s November 29, 2016, amended notice of appeal ended up being prompt to attract from the region court’s last judgment on the part of Lanier myself. After briefing by both events, the Court determined it was perhaps maybe not, but reserved the question of whether Lanier’s 10, 2016 notice on behalf of “Lanier Law, et al.” perfected his appeal in his personal capacity october.