Procedural Background

Procedural Background

District Court Procedures

The FTC filed a grievance against Lanier, Robles, Rennick, Lanier Law, in addition to D.C. businesses, alleging which they had marketed and offered 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 product Sales Rule (TSR). 6 particularly, the FTC alleged the defendants had misrepresented their capability to acquire mortgage adjustments, charged consumers advance charges, neglected to add disclosures that are required their communications, initiated calls in breach regarding the TSR, and did not spend the mandatory charges to gain access to the nationwide Do-Not-Call list.

The FTC relocated for summary judgment, together with region court granted the motion. The court figured the defendants violated part 5 regarding the FTCA by simply making product misrepresentations that caused consumer that is substantial and also by breaking the MARS Rule in addition to TSR. The district court determined that the defendants violated the MARS Rule once they demanded and received charges with regards to their solutions just before doing any work; misrepresented the probability of acquiring a loan modification, particularly with regards to reductions in monthly premiums, interest levels, and major balances; and did not make appropriate disclosures. Finally, the court determined that Lanier ended up being independently responsible for the functions associated with the business entities. 7 The region court determined that their authority and control of the defendants and their understanding of their methods put him “squarely in the center of the misleading enterprise,” making him individually accountable for the misconduct. Purchase at 72-74 (Doc. 281).

On August 12, 2016, the region court joined a permanent injunction against Lanier and their co-defendants. The region court also joined judgment in support of the FTC into the quantity of $13,586,713. This really is Lanier’s appeal. 8

Appellate Proceedings

On October 10, 2016, Lanier filed a notice that is timely of, for which he known himself additionally the entities comprising Lanier Law because the “Lanier Defendants”:

Defendant, Lanier Law, et al., hereinafter the “Lanier Defendants,” hereby appeals towards the usa Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit through the judgment that is final of District Court dated August 12, 2016 while the purchase of July 7, 2016 ․

Notice of Appeal (Doc. 303). Following the appeal ended up being docketed, Lanier attempted to enter an look with respect to 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 was indeed rejected.

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

Defendant, Michael W. Lanier, Esq, separately, ․ hereby appeals into the usa Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ․ Lanier is admitted to rehearse ahead of the Federal District Court, but ended up being rejected admission to apply into 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” which he would “represent himself, pro se, and that none of this corporate (Lanier) defendants would join him within the appeal.” Lanier Law ended up being then dismissed through the appeal.

Even though the appeal had been pending, this Court asked the parties to handle whether Lanier’s November 29, 2016, amended notice of appeal ended up being prompt to allure through the region court’s last judgment on the part of Lanier myself. payday loans Bristol Connecticut After briefing by both events, the Court determined it was maybe perhaps 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.

Leave a comment

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