Procedural Background

Procedural Background

District Court Procedures

The FTC filed a complaint against Lanier, Robles, Rennick https://badcreditloanshelp.net/payday-loans-ks/derby/, Lanier Law, therefore the D.C. businesses, alleging which they had sold and marketed home loan support relief solutions in violation of part 5(a) of this Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 4 the home loan Assistance Relief Services Rule (legislation O) (MARS Rule), 5 therefore the Telemarketing product Sales Rule (TSR). 6 particularly, the FTC alleged the defendants had misrepresented their capability to get home loan adjustments, charged consumers advance charges, neglected to include disclosures that are required their communications, initiated calls in breach regarding the TSR, and neglected to spend the necessary charges to get into the nationwide Do-Not-Call list.

The FTC relocated for summary judgment, as well as the region court granted the movement. The court determined that the defendants violated part 5 of this 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 charges because of their solutions ahead of doing any work; misrepresented the possibilities of obtaining financing modification, particularly with regards to reductions in monthly premiums, interest levels, and major balances; and neglected to make appropriate disclosures. Finally, the court figured Lanier had been separately responsible for the acts of this entities that are corporate. 7 The region court determined that their authority and control of the defendants and their familiarity with their methods put him “squarely in the center with this misleading enterprise,” making him individually accountable 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 co-defendants. The region court additionally joined judgment in support of the FTC into the number of $13,586,713. That is Lanier’s appeal. 8

Appellate Procedures

On October 10, 2016, Lanier filed a notice that is timely of, in which he described himself while 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 through the judgment that is final of District Court dated August 12, 2016 in addition to 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 behalf of himself and Lanier Law in this Court, nevertheless the form was returned by the Clerk unfiled because Lanier’s application for admission into the Eleventh Circuit club have been denied.

As a result, on November 29, 2016, Lanier filed an amended notice of appeal when you look at the region court:

Defendant, Michael W. Lanier, Esq, separately, ․ hereby appeals to the united states of america Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ․ Lanier is admitted to apply ahead of the Federal District Court, but ended up being rejected admission to apply within the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals also as pro vice that is hac here.

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

Even though the appeal ended up being pending, this Court asked the events to handle 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 perhaps maybe perhaps not, but reserved the concern of whether Lanier’s October 10, 2016 notice with respect to “Lanier Law, et al.” perfected their appeal in their individual ability.

Leave a Comment

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