UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23028-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

MARK A. TURNER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC, 

and AMROCK, LLC,

Defendants. 

_____________________________/ 

OMNIBUS ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO QUASH 

AND SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff Mark A. Turner’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to 

Quash and Set Aside [Judge Bloom’s] Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Enforcement of 

Settlement Agreement Administrative Denial of Due Process and Violation of Constitutional 

Rights, ECF No. [143] (“Amended Motion to Quash”), and Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, 

ECF No. [144] (“Motion for Final Judgment”). Plaintiff also filed a Memorandum and Exhibits in 

Support of Preexistence of Essential Material Terms of Inflated Monthly Mortgage Payments of 

$590 to $738 Plus Interest and Penalties, ECF No. [145]. 

Plaintiff represents the Amended Motion to Quash is an amended version of the Motion to 

Quash filed on October 24, 2023, ECF No. [135], that includes additional authorities in support of 

the Motion to Quash. ECF No. [143] at 1. The Court has reviewed the Amended Motion to Quash 

and finds that Plaintiff’s authorities do not represent a change in controlling law since the Court 

enter its Order denying the Motion to Quash and denies it for the reasons stated in the Court’s 

October 24, 2023 Order. See ECF No. [138] (denying Motion to Quash in part because motion did 

not indicate a change in controlling law). 

Case 1:22-cv-23028-BB Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2023 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 22-cv-23028-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

Plaintiff also seeks an entry of Final Judgment under Rule 58(d) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure on the grounds that the Court’s previous Orders indicate that Final Judgment 

should be entered. ECF No. [144] at 2. Rule 58(d) provides that “[a] party may request that 

judgment be set out in a separate document as required by Rule 58(a).” Fed R. Civ. P. 58(d). 

Plaintiff has provided no legal authority supporting that entry of a Final Judgment under Rule 

58(d) would be appropriate at this point in the case, but by its plain terms, Rule 58(d) allows a 

party to request that a court enter a Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 58(a). However, Rule 58(d) 

is premised on a district court reaching a Final Judgment, but there has been no Final Judgment 

here. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice is pending before the Court, so the entry of 

Final Judgment would be premature. See generally ECF No. [130]. Plaintiff’s Motion for Final 

Judgment is therefore due to be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash and Set Aside [Judge Bloom’s] Order Granting 

Defendant’s Motion for Enforcement of Settlement Agreement Administrative 

Denial of Due Process and Violation of Constitutional Rights, ECF No. [143], is 

DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment, ECF No. [144], is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s Memorandum and Exhibits in Support of Preexistence of Essential 

Material Terms of Inflated Monthly Mortgage Payments of $590 to $738 Plus 

Interest and Penalties, ECF No. [145], is STRICKEN.

Case 1:22-cv-23028-BB Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2023 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 22-cv-23028-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

3

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on October 31, 2023.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Mark A. Turner 

1411 SE 26th Avenue 

Homestead, FL 33035 

PRO SE

Case 1:22-cv-23028-BB Document 146 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2023 Page 3 of 3