Procedural Background

Procedural Background

District Court Procedures

The FTC filed a problem against Lanier, Robles, Rennick, Lanier Law, together with D.C. companies, alleging which they had marketed and offered home loan help relief services in breach of part 5(a) of this Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 4 the home loan Assistance Relief solutions Rule (legislation O) (MARS Rule), 5 and also the Telemarketing product product product Sales Rule (TSR). 6 particularly, the FTC alleged the defendants had misrepresented their capability to get home loan adjustments, charged consumers advance fees, didn’t consist of disclosures that are required their communications, initiated calls in breach associated with TSR, and did not spend the desired charges to get into the nationwide Do-Not-Call list.

The FTC moved for summary judgment, as well as the region court granted the motion. The court determined that the defendants violated part 5 of this FTCA by simply making product misrepresentations that caused consumer that is substantial and also by breaking the MARS Rule in addition to TSR. The region court determined that the defendants violated the MARS Rule once they demanded and received charges with regards to their solutions ahead of doing any work; misrepresented the possibilities of acquiring financing modification, specially with regards to reductions in monthly premiums, interest levels, and major balances; and neglected to make disclosures that are proper. Finally, the court figured Lanier ended up being 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 along with his understanding of their methods put him “squarely during the center of the enterprise that is deceptive” 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 along with his co-defendants. The region court additionally joined judgment in support of the FTC into the level 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 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 last judgment associated with 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 with respect to 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.

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 into the united states of america Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ․ Lanier is admitted to apply prior to the Federal District Court, but ended up being rejected admission to apply in 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 designed to “reflect” which he would “represent himself, pro se, and therefore none associated with corporate (Lanier) defendants would join him when you look at the appeal.” Lanier Law had been then dismissed through the appeal.

Although the appeal had been pending, this Court asked the events to handle whether Lanier’s November 29, 2016, amended notice of appeal ended up being prompt to impress through the region court’s last judgment on behalf of Lanier physically. After briefing by both events, the Court determined it was perhaps 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.