Case ID: f-appx_567/html/0817-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joshua S. FRIEBEL, Husband, Elizabeth F. Friebel, and Wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PARADISE SHORES OF BAY COUNTY LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant-Cross Claimant-Cross Defendant, Robert E. Blackerby, an Individual, Magnum Capital LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, MH 1 Limited Liability Company, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Cross Defendants-Cross Claimants-Appellees, Durden Enterprises II Inc., a Delaware Corporation, et al., Defendants-Cross Defendants, Michael Earl Durden, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Kedrick Earl Durden, Defendant.
    No. 12-16573
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    May 28, 2014.
    Joshua S. Friebel, Husband, Eagle River, AE, pro se.
    Elizabeth F. Friebel, and Wife, Eagle River, AK, pro se.
    Angela Carol Flowers, Kubicki Draper, PA, Ocala, FL, Chad B. Hess, Stuart Clark Poage, Kubicki Draper, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendan1>-Appellee.
    Before WILSON, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Joshua Friebel and Elizabeth Friebel appeal, pro se, the district court’s denial of their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment enforcing their settlement agreement with three defendants, in which the Friebels were alleged to have agreed to pay the defendants $100,000. Based on the record, the district court did not err by denying the 60(b) motion: the Friebels failed to show that their repeatedly omitting (in the face of court directions) to respond to the defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. On appeal, they also have failed to advance an argument that they have a meritorious defense to the motion that is likely to prevail. No abuse of discretion has been shown. For background, see In re Worldwide Web Systems, Inc., 328 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir.2003). Moreover, on the recusal-sua-sponte issue, the district judge did not err: because the record shows no evidence of pervasive bias. See Hamm v. Members of Bd. of Regents of State of Fla., 708 F.2d 647, 651 (11th Cir.1983).

AFFIRMED.