Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colom., 771 F.3d 713, 736 (11th Cir. We review de novo the denial of a motion to set aside a judg-ment for voidness under Rule 60(b)(4). ![]() Third, she asserts that the court erred by failing to analyze fraud on the court.įinally, she argues that the court’s denial of an extension to file objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation violated 28 U.S.C. Second, she contends that the court abridged her due process right to an impartial tribunal, notice, and an opportunity to be heard by dismissing her federal claims where the defendants did not unanimously consent to removal, the court judicially noticed facts without a hearing, and the judge was a member of an adverse party. On appeal, she argues, first, that the district court erred by denying her Rule 60 motion as untimely. She originally filed her complaint in Florida state court, but the Florida Bar removed her case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Marie Henry, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), (d)(3) motion seeking relief from the court’s order dismissing her federal claims raised pursuant to several federal statutes, and remanding to state court her state law claims raised pursuant to Florida state law.Īfter filing an ethics complaint against one of the defendants and a pro se motion to disqualify a judge in a predatory lending case, Henry was referred to a Florida Bar grievance committee on two counts of misconduct and, after disciplinary proceedings that she challenged as defective, she was suspended for 6 months. Reinhart takes great offense to these accusation-which he contends are false, irrelevant to the CVRA claims, and gratuitous-and seeks intervention to rebut these allegations and move for sanction.īefore LUCK, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. ![]() Plaintiffs contend that such conduct ‘give, at least, the improper appearance that Reinhart may have attempted to curry with Epstein and then reap his reward through favorable employment.’ (DE 48 at 23). Joined Epstein’s payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein’s criminal liability’ and improperly represented Epstein victims in follow-on civil suits. In that motion, the plaintiffs alleged that Reinhart: ![]() United States- Reinhart took offense at the idea that he did anything wrong. In one of the 2011 Epstein cases- Jane Does # 1 and #2 v. attorney, he learned confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter.’’ Attorney’s Office filed a court paper contradicting him, saying that Reinhart’s former supervisors in the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |