Procedural Background

Procedural Background

District Court Procedures

The FTC filed an issue against Lanier, Robles, Rennick, Lanier Law, additionally the D.C. organizations, alleging they had sold and marketed home loan support relief solutions in breach of area 5(a) associated with the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 4 the home loan Assistance Relief solutions Rule (legislation O) (MARS Rule), 5 plus the Telemarketing product product Sales Rule (TSR). 6 especially, the FTC alleged the defendants had misrepresented their capability to acquire home loan alterations, charged consumers advance charges, didn’t add needed disclosures in their communications, initiated calls in breach associated with TSR, and did not spend the necessary charges to get into the nationwide Do-Not-Call list.

The FTC moved for summary judgment, while the region court granted the movement. The court determined that the defendants violated area 5 regarding the FTCA by simply making product misrepresentations that caused significant customer damage and also by breaking the MARS Rule plus the TSR. The district court determined that the defendants violated the MARS Rule if they demanded and received costs because of their solutions ahead of performing any work; misrepresented the possibilities of getting financing modification, specially with regards to reductions in monthly premiums, rates of interest, and major balances; and neglected to make appropriate disclosures. Finally, the court determined that Lanier had been independently liable for the functions associated with the business entities. 7 The district court determined that their authority and control of the defendants and their understanding of their methods put him “squarely during the center for this enterprise that is deceptive” making him individually responsible for the misconduct. Purchase at 72-74 (Doc. 281).

On August 12, 2016, the district court joined a permanent injunction against Lanier and their co-defendants. The district court additionally joined judgment in support of the FTC when you look at the number 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 known himself plus the entities comprising Lanier Law since the “Lanier Defendants”:

Defendant, Lanier Law, et al., hereinafter the “Lanier Defendants,” hereby appeals towards the united states of america Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit through the last judgment for the District Court dated August 12, 2016 therefore the purchase 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 form was returned by the Clerk unfiled because Lanier’s application for admission within the Eleventh Circuit club have been rejected.

https://badcreditloans4all.com/payday-loans-tx/stephenville/

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

Defendant, Michael W. Lanier, Esq, individually, ․ hereby appeals towards the united states of america Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ․ Lanier is admitted to rehearse prior to the Federal District Court, but had been rejected admission to rehearse within the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals also as pro vice that is hac 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 regarding the corporate (Lanier) defendants would join him within the appeal.” Lanier Law ended up being dismissed through the appeal.

As the appeal had been 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 with respect to Lanier myself. After briefing by both events, the Court determined it was perhaps 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.

Leave a Reply

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