IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA 

THE FLORIDA BAR, Supreme Court Case 

No. SC- Complainant, 

The Florida Bar File 

v. No. 2021-70,391(11L) 

JULIO CESAR MARRERO, 

Respondent. 

___________________________/ 

COMPLAINT 

The Florida Bar, complainant, files this Complaint against Julio Cesar 

Marrero, respondent, pursuant to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and 

alleges: 

1. Respondent is and was at all times mentioned herein a member 

of The Florida Bar admitted on December 23, 1988 and is subject to the 

jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida. 

2. Respondent resided and practiced law in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida, at all times material. 

3. The Eleventh Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee L found 

probable cause to file this complaint pursuant to Rule 3-7.4, of the Rules 

Regulating The Florida Bar, and this complaint has been approved by the 

presiding member of that committee. 

Filing # 136346012 E-Filed 10/12/2021 09:14:30 AM RECEIVED, 10/12/2021 09:15:22 AM, Clerk, Supreme Court

Case 22-10006-AJC Doc 26-3 Filed 02/22/22 Page 1 of 14
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. On or about March 30, 2021, Chief Judge K. Michael Moore, of 

the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (USDC), 

referred respondent to the Court’s Committee on Attorney Admissions, 

Peer Review, and Attorney Grievance in connection with respondent’s 

misconduct in two matters: Black River Partners I, LLC v. Conategi, LLC, 

1:21-cv-20912-KMM and MJM Structural Corp. v. Columbus Apartments, 

LLC, 1:21-cv-20631-KMM. 

5. There are approximately twenty additional federal court and 

bankruptcy matters in which respondent engaged in the same or similar 

misconduct, as described in the attached chart submitted by the USDC. 

See a copy of the Chart entitled Attorney Julio Cesar Marrero Recent 

Removal Cases (2018-Present), attached hereto and incorporated herein 

as Ex. A. 

6. In the two matters recently referred to the Court’s Committee on 

Attorney Grievance, and in the matters referred to in the chart attached 

hereto, respondent repeatedly filed frivolous pleadings, engaged in bad 

faith litigation tactics, gamesmanship, and dilatory tactics by filing notices of 

removal in the USDC in order to forestall state court proceedings; primarily 

to delay foreclosure sales. 

2 

Case 22-10006-AJC Doc 26-3 Filed 02/22/22 Page 2 of 14
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Respondent’s modus operandi is to file a notice of removal 

without (1) a civil cover sheet, (2) state court records, or (3) paying the filing 

fee. Respondent then does not respond to the court’s orders to show 

cause. 

8. For instance, in the Black River Partners matter referred by 

Chief Judge Moore, respondent filed the notice of removal on March 8, 

2021. On the same date, the clerk notified respondent that he had not paid 

the filing fee, had not provided state court records, and had not provided a 

civil cover sheet, as required by 28 USC § 1446 and the Clerk’s Civil Filing 

Requirements. Respondent was instructed to cure these defects within 

twenty-four hours. 

9. Respondent did not respond to that notice, nor did he pay the 

filing fee, provide the records or the civil cover sheet. 

10. On March 23, 2021, the court issued an Order to Show Cause, 

setting forth the above and requiring the parties to respond by March 26, 

2021 and state why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to 

comply with the statutory requirements governing removal and the Clerk’s 

Civil Filing Requirements. 

11. On March 24, 2021, counsel for Black River Partners, the 

plaintiff in the underlying action, filed its response to the order to show 

3 

Case 22-10006-AJC Doc 26-3 Filed 02/22/22 Page 3 of 14
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cause with multiple attachments, requesting the matter be closed and 

remanded back to state court. 

12. Respondent failed to file a response to the order to show cause 

on behalf of himself or his client. 

13. On March 30, 2021, the Chief Judge closed the case and 

remanded it back to state court. In his order, the Chief Judge held: 

Given Plaintiff’s arguments and Defendant’s failure to 

respond to this Court’s Orders, the Court finds that 

remand is warranted. Additionally, the Court recognizes 

that this is not Defendant’s first attempt to use removal 

tactics in order to forestall state court proceedings. See 

TCM Fin., LLC v. Conategi, LLC, No. 21-cv-20640-

BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes, 2021 WL 925516, at *3 (S.D. Fla. 

Mar. 11, 2021) (collecting cases). Indeed, in TCM Fin. 

the Court found that “[t]hese removals are patently 

frivolous and reflect pure gamesmanship” and 

Defendant’s counsel’s “conduct runs contrary to counsel’s 

duty of candor to the tribunal and serves only to waste 

limited resources of all parties and institutions involved— 

both at the state and federal level.” Id. at *4. 

14. In addition to remanding the matter back to the state court, 

Chief Judge Moore admonished respondent and referred him to the 

Committee on Attorney Admissions, Peer Review, and Attorney Grievance 

for investigation. 

15. On April 27, 2021, opposing counsel filed Plaintiff’s Verified 

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Sanctions and Incorporated Memorandum 

of Law. On April 28, 2021 the motion for fees and sanctions was referred 

4 

Case 22-10006-AJC Doc 26-3 Filed 02/22/22 Page 4 of 14
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to the magistrate judge for hearing. The magistrate judge was also ordered 

to determine the appropriate sanction for respondent’s failure to pay the 

filing fee as ordered in the March 30, 2021 remand order. 

16. On April 29, 2021, respondent filed a notice of appeal of the 

March 30, 2021 remand order. 

17. Similarly, in the MJM Structural Corp matter, respondent filed a 

notice of removal on behalf of his clients, the defendants in the matter, on 

February 16, 2021, in the days just prior to a court ordered foreclosure 

sale. 

18. Respondent, again, did not pay the filing fee or provide a civil 

cover sheet. The Clerk ordered respondent to pay the fee and provide the 

cover sheet within twenty-four hours of filing. 

19. Rather than comply with the clerk’s directives, respondent 

instead filed a successive and duplicative notice of removal, causing the 

scheduled foreclosure sale to be canceled. 

20. In both of the successive and duplicative removal cases, 

respondent failed to pay the filing fee or to provide a civil cover sheet. 

Accordingly, the clerk was not aware that the two cases referred to the 

same matter, and so the matters were assigned to different judges. 

5 

Case 22-10006-AJC Doc 26-3 Filed 02/22/22 Page 5 of 14
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21. On February 17, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel moved the court to 

strike the removal notices and dismiss the action based on the fact that the 

alleged grounds for same were moot, and based on respondent’s 

deficiencies in failing to pay the filing fees or to provide the requisite civil 

cover sheets. Plaintiff’s counsel also delineated the long standing pattern 

of abusive delay tactics employed by respondent, noting Judge Butchko’s 

findings in her July 7, 2020, order in the underlying state court foreclosure 

case: 

The record has established that Defendants’ 

conduct delayed the proceedings and resulted in 

undue expense to the Plaintiff; that Plaintiff’s 

ability to prosecute this case has been prejudiced; 

that Plaintiff’s due process rights have been 

prejudiced; and that the administration of justice 

has been hampered. Defendants’ conduct 

exhibited an intentional delay tactic, a pattern of 

refusal to follow rules, and established a lack of 

good faith. The delay created by Defendant’s 

conduct has created significant problems in 

judicial administration and resulted in countless 

hours being spent by the Court. 

22. On February 17, 2021, Chief Judge Moore issued an order to 

show cause as to why the filing fee was not paid and the civil cover sheet 

not provided. 

23. Respondent failed to respond to the order to show cause. 

Respondent also failed to pay the filing fee or provide the civil cover sheet. 

6 

Case 22-10006-AJC Doc 26-3 Filed 02/22/22 Page 6 of 14
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24. On April 5, 2021, Chief Judge Moore issued an order closing 

the removal case and remanding the matter back to the state court. 

25. On April 29, 2021, respondent filed his notice of appeal of the 

remand order. 

26. On April 30, 2021, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration 

of the court’s remand order, citing an issue with his credit card and the 

clerk’s error as his reason for not paying the filing fee. 

27. On the same date, Chief Judge Moore issued a scathing order 

denying the motion for reconsideration, and citing respondent’s long 

standing history of the same misconduct in past cases in rejecting 

respondent’s explanation for his failure to pay the filing fees. Chief Judge 

Moore again admonished respondent, and referred him to the Court’s 

Committee on Attorney Admissions, Peer Review and Attorney Grievance 

for investigation. 

28. On May 14, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and 

Recommendation, finding that “Defendants actions and inactions, again, 

through counsel Marrero, demonstrate a willful disregard of multiple Court 

orders in this case (ECF Nos. 6,12) as well as a disregard for the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District 

Court for Southern District of Florida.... As such, the undersigned finds that 

7 

Case 22-10006-AJC Doc 26-3 Filed 02/22/22 Page 7 of 14
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defendants and their counsel have acted in bad faith and abused the 

judicial process to the extent that sanctions are warranted in the form of 

attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff as a result of the misconduct.” 

29. On June 4, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Eleventh Circuit dismissed respondent’s appeal of the remand order for 

because respondent failed to file a Civil Appeal Statement form within the 

time fixed by rule. 

30. The attached chart demonstrates the intentional nature of 

respondent’s misconduct, and that he has engaged in these same 

frivolous, bad faith, and dilatory litigation tactics in multiple cases spanning 

at least two years. 

31. By reason of the foregoing, respondent has violated the 

following Rules Regulating The Florida Bar: 4-3.1 (Advocate; Meritorious 

Claims and Contentions), 4-3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 

4-8.4(c) (A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit, or misrepresentation), and 4-8.4(d) (A lawyer shall not engage in 

conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the 

administration of justice). 

8 

Case 22-10006-AJC Doc 26-3 Filed 02/22/22 Page 8 of 14
 

 

 

 

 

 

WHEREFORE, The Florida Bar prays respondent will be 

appropriately disciplined in accordance with the provisions of the Rules 

Regulating The Florida Bar as amended. 

Jennifer R. Falcone, Bar Counsel 

The Florida Bar - Miami Branch Office 

444 Brickell Avenue 

Rivergate Plaza, Suite M-100 

Miami, Florida 33131-2404 

(305) 377-4445 

Florida Bar No. 624284 

jfalcone@floridabar.org 

Patricia Ann Toro Savitz, Staff Counsel 

The Florida Bar 

651 E. Jefferson Street 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300 

(850) 561-5839 

Florida Bar No. 559547 

psavitz@floridabar.org 

9 

Case 22-10006-AJC Doc 26-3 Filed 02/22/22 Page 9 of 14
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that this document has been efiled with The Honorable John 

A. Tomasino, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida, with a copy provided 

to Julio Cesar Marrero, Respondent, via email at 

julio@marrerolawfirm.com; and that a copy has been furnished by United 

States Mail via certified mail no. 7017 1450 0000 7821 0766, return receipt 

requested to Julio Cesar Marrero, Respondent, whose record bar address 

is 3850 Bird Road, Suite 1001, Miami, FL 33146-1501; and to Jennifer R. 

Falcone, Bar Counsel, via email at jfalcone@floridabar.org; on this 12th 

day of October, 2021. 

Patricia Ann Toro Savitz 

Staff Counsel 

10 

Case 22-10006-AJC Doc 26-3 Filed 02/22/22 Page 10 of 14
 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTICE OF TRIAL COUNSEL AND DESIGNATION OF PRIMARY EMAIL 

ADDRESS 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the trial counsel in this matter is 

Jennifer R Falcone, Bar Counsel, whose address, telephone number and 

primary email address are The Florida Bar, Miami Branch Office, 444 

Brickell Avenue, Rivergate Plaza, Suite M-100, Miami, Florida 33131-2404, 

(305) 377-4445 and jfalcone@floridabar.org. Respondent need not address 

pleadings, correspondence, etc. in this matter to anyone other than trial 

counsel and to Staff Counsel, The Florida Bar, 651 E Jefferson Street, 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, psavitz@floridabar.org. 

11 

Case 22-10006-AJC Doc 26-3 Filed 02/22/22 Page 11 of 14
ATTORNEY JULIO CESAR MARRERO RECENT REMOVAL CASES 

(2018 – Present) 

Filing Motion for Case Number Case Name Date Filed Case Type Case Status Fee Paid Sanctions 

Trinity Financial Services Remanded – no subject-matter jurisdiction 18-cv-21775-RNS 5/4/2018 Foreclosure Y N v. Perez Jr. (ECF No. [5]) 

Motion to remand and for sanctions denied 

without prejudice, cautioning Defendant N Y (denied OH Capital Collections, not to file an unfounded amended notice of 18-cv-24376-CMA 10/22/2018 Foreclosure (See ECF without LLC v. Hialeah 150, LLC removal (ECF No. [12]); Remanded after No. [16]) prejudice) Defendant indicated its intent not to file an 

amended notice of removal (ECF No. [14]) 

First Southwestern Remanded – no subject-matter jurisdiction 19-cv-21726-CMA Financial Services, LLC v. 5/2/2019 Replevin Y N (ECF No. [36]) Dawkins Home, Inc. 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Remanded – motion to remand granted by 19-cv-10125-JEM 7/23/2019 Foreclosure Y N Buckles default (ECF No. [12]) 

Deutsche Bank National Remanded – motion to remand granted by Y 

19-cv-24882-JEM Trust Company v. 11/26/2019 Foreclosure Y default and no basis for removal found (withdrawn 

Rodriguez (ECF No. [19]) by consent) 

Remanded for failure to file an amended 1220 Broadway, LLC v. 19-cv-25299-CMA 12/27/2019 Eviction Y notice of removal as ordered by the Court N Red Koi Corp. (ECF No. [7]) 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Dismissed without prejudice for failing to 20-cv-10023-KMM 3/11/2020 Foreclosure Y N Buckles file the JSR (ECF No. [8]) 

Remanded – removal was untimely and 5AIF Maple 2 LLC v. 5725 Y (referred 20-cv-24178-RNS 10/13/2020 Foreclosure Y likely lacking subject-matter jurisdiction Lagorce Partners LLC and pending) (ECF No. [21]) 

Remanded – removal was untimely and 20-cv-62342-RS Axos Bank v. Chowdhury 11/18/2020 Foreclosure Y N request for attorneys’ fees granted 

First Southwestern Remanded – no subject-matter jurisdiction 20-cv-24768-JAL Financial Services, LLC v. 11/19/2020 Replevin Y N (ECF No. [32]) Dawkins Home Inc. 

5AIF Maple 2 LLC v. 5725 Motion to remand pending (no response Y (referred 21-cv-20298-MGC 1/25/2021 Foreclosure Y Lagorce Partners LLC timely filed) and pending) 

21-cv-20365-DLG AJK LLC v. Crabel Inc. 1/28/2021 Writ of Garnishment Y Open (no activity since initial filing) N 

First Southwestern Remanded – motion to remand granted by 21-cv-20484-DPG Financial LLC v. T.D. 2/4/2021 Writ of Garnishment Y N default (ECF No. [8]) Bank, N.A. 

Filing # 136346012 E-Filed 10/12/2021 09:14:30 AM RECEIVED, 10/12/2021 09:15:22 AM, Clerk, Supreme Court

Case 22-10006-AJC Doc 26-3 Filed 02/22/22 Page 12 of 14
MJM Structural Corp. v. Motion to remand pending (no response 21-cv-20601-DLG Columbus Apartments, 2/12/2021 Foreclosure N N timely filed) LLC 

Motion to dismiss or remand pending (no MJM Structural Corp. v. response timely filed); (See also ECF No. Y (referred 21-cv-20631-KMM Columbus Apartments, 2/16/2021 Foreclosure N [8] re: removing case solely to cancel and pending) LLC foreclosure sale) 

TCM Finance, LLC v. Motion to remand and for sanctions 21-cv-20640-BB 2/16/2021 Foreclosure N Y (pending) Conategi, LLC pending (no response timely filed) 

Elizon DB Transfer Agent Remanded – no subject-matter jurisdiction 21-cv-20795-UU 2/26/2021 Foreclosure N N LLC v. CMG Capital, LLC (ECF No. [7]) 

Deutsche Bank National 21-cv-20801-BB 2/26/2021 Foreclosure N Open (no activity since initial filing) N Trust Company v. Valdes 

Black River Partners I, 21-cv-20912-KMM 3/8/2021 Foreclosure N Open (no activity since initial filing) N LLC v. Conategi, LLC 

Case 22-10006-AJC Doc 26-3 Filed 02/22/22 Page 13 of 14
 

 

MANDATORY ANSWER NOTICE 

RULE 3-7.6(h)(2), RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR, 

PROVIDES THAT A RESPONDENT SHALL ANSWER A COMPLAINT. 

12 

Case 22-10006-AJC Doc 26-3 Filed 02/22/22 Page 14 of 14