Procedural Background

Procedural Background

District Court Procedures

The FTC filed an issue against Lanier, Robles, Rennick, Lanier Law, plus the D.C. companies, alleging which they had marketed and offered home loan help relief solutions in violation of part 5(a) associated with the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 4 the home loan Assistance Relief solutions Rule (legislation O) (MARS Rule), 5 therefore the Telemarketing product product product Sales Rule (TSR). 6 particularly, the FTC alleged the defendants had misrepresented their capability to acquire home loan alterations, charged consumers advance charges, didn’t consist of necessary disclosures in their communications, initiated calls in violation for the TSR, and neglected to spend the mandatory charges to get into the National Do-Not-Call list.

The FTC moved for summary judgment, additionally the region court granted the movement. The court figured the defendants violated part 5 regarding the FTCA by simply making product misrepresentations that caused significant customer damage and also by breaking the MARS Rule together with TSR. The region court determined that the defendants violated the MARS Rule once they demanded and received costs with their solutions just before doing any work; misrepresented the chances of getting that loan modification, specially with respect to reductions in monthly premiums, interest levels, and major balances; and neglected to make disclosures that are proper. Finally, the court determined that Lanier had been separately responsible for the functions of this business entities. 7 The region court determined that their authority and control of the defendants along with his understanding of their methods put him “squarely during the center of the enterprise that is deceptive” making him individually responsible for the misconduct. Purchase at 72-74 (Doc. 281).

On August 12, 2016, the region court entered a permanent injunction against Lanier along with his https://badcreditloanshelp.net/payday-loans-fl/lake-city/ co-defendants. The district court additionally entered judgment and only the FTC into 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, by which he known himself as well as the entities comprising Lanier Law while the “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 from the judgment that is final of District Court dated August 12, 2016 plus the purchase of July 7, 2016 ․

Notice of Appeal (Doc. 303). Following the appeal ended up being docketed, Lanier attempted to enter a look with respect to himself and Lanier Law in this Court, nevertheless the Clerk came back the proper execution unfiled because Lanier’s application for admission within the Eleventh Circuit bar have been rejected.

In reaction, on 29, 2016, Lanier filed an amended notice of appeal in the district court november:

Defendant, Michael W. Lanier, Esq, separately, ․ hereby appeals towards the united states of america Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ․ Lanier is admitted to rehearse ahead of the Federal District Court, but had been rejected admission to apply when you look at 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 meant to “reflect” he would “represent himself, pro se, and that none regarding the corporate (Lanier) defendants would join him into the appeal.” Lanier Law had been then dismissed through the appeal.

As the appeal ended up being pending, this Court asked the events to deal with whether Lanier’s 29, 2016, amended notice of appeal was timely to appeal from the district court’s final judgment on behalf of Lanier personally november. After briefing by both events, the Court determined it was maybe not, but reserved the concern of whether Lanier’s 10, 2016 notice on behalf of “Lanier Law, et al.” perfected his appeal in his personal capacity october.

X