FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 7, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 93 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :1 0- cv -0 03 71 -J A-DAB DEUTSCHE BANK NA TIONAL TRUST COMPANY, As Tru st ee, i n Tru stforth e Reg is te redHol de rs of Arg en t Se curit ie s In c., Ass et -Bac ke d P as s- Thro ug h C ert ifi cat es , Seri es 20 05 -W4, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us LLOYD A . STORY, SARAH K. LOVE JOY-S TORY, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s, UNKNOW

N TENAN T #1 , etal., Defen da nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 7 , 20 11 )Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Llo y d A. St ory

an d S arah K. Love

joy -St ory , pro ceed in g p ro se, app eal fro m th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er i m po si ng san ct io ns ag ai ns t t he m , purs ua ntto Fed . R. Civ
. P. 11 . After i ss ui ng anord er t o s ho w cau se why sa nc ti on s s ho ul d n otbe im po se d
an d h ol di ng a he ari ng on th atord er, the di st ric t co urt en te redanord er s an ct io ni ng th e St ory s fo r se ek in g t o re m ov e to fed eral co urt t hi s m ortg ag e fo recl os ur e act io n
or ig in al ly file d i n s ta te co urt b y Deut sc he Ban k Nat io na l Tru stCo m pany (“ Deu ts ch e”). Th e co urt fo un d tha t t he Sto ry ’s att em ptto rem ov e th e cas e
co ns ti tu te d abu si ve an d v ex at io us li ti ga ti on co nduc t t ha t i nt erfe redwit h i ts ab il it y to carry ou t i ts du ti es un de r Arti cl e III o f th e Co ns ti tu ti on . The co urt ex pl ai ne d: Bet ween th em , [th e St ory s] hav e rem ov edfou rte enfor ecl os ur e act io ns to th e co urts in th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a, al l o f whi ch ha ve be enrem an de d. Of tho se fou rte en , si x wer e th e sa m e st at e co urt fo recl os ur e act io n (t ha t i s, t hr ee s ta te cas es rem ov edtwi ce). Inth e el ev en th cas e . . . , th is Co urt fo un d tha t n oton ly hadMs . Lov ejoySt ory an d M r. Sto ry

ag ai n i m pr op erl y rem ov eda st at e fo recl os ur e act io n t o t hi s C ou rt, b utth atbo thMs . Lov ejoy-Sto ry an d M r. Sto ry ha d p rev io us ly been warn edth atth ei r ab us iv e rem ov al pra ct ic e m ig ht res ul t i n s an ct io ns . Furt he r, th e Co urt fo un d t ha t i [t] was c le ar tha t ne it he r Mr. St ory

or M s. Lo ve

joy -St ory in te nd edto ceas e th ei r ab us e of th e rem ov al pro ces s. A rev ie w of t he do ck et s i n t he Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a sh ow the y st il l d idno t s to p t he ir abu se of t he rem ov al pro ces s af

te r [the y were warn ed ], im

pr op erl y rem ov in g t hr ee (3 ) m or e st at e fo recl os ur e act io ns . . . .

. . . 2Thi s ca se is th e se co ndrem ov al of t he same sta te co urt fo recl os ur e

act io n. . . . Th[i s] sec on d re m ov al [oc cu rred ] no t o nl y aft er thi s ac ti on ha d b een pre vi ou sl y

rem an de d, b ut
. . . aft er re m an ds in ele ve n o th er st at e fo recl os ur e act io ns fil edby Mr. Sto ry , Ms . Lov ejoy-Sto ry , or bo th
. . . . Bot h M r. Sto ry an d M s. Lo ve

joy -St ory kn ew whe n t he y fil edth e Not ic e o f Rem ov al in th is cas e, th atth e ex actcau se of a ct io n an d e xa ctform

of n ot ic e o f rem ov al ha d b een reject edby thi s C ou rt. The Co urt fi nd s t ha t t he re was no arg uabl e b as is forth e se co nd rem ov al of the st at e cas e. As a re su lt , th e d is tri ctco urt o rd eredth e St ory s t o p ay Deut sc he $1 ,26 4.2 4, t he
co st s i t i nc urredin co nn ect io n wi th th e at te m pt edrem ov al in th is cas e. The c ou rt fu rth er i ss ue d a n i nju nc ti on pre ve nt in g fu rth er co urt fi li ng s b y th e St ory s fr om be in g re cei ve d b y

th e Cl erkof C ou rt wi th ou t fi rs t b ei ng rev ie wedan d s cree ne d fo r arg uabl e m eri t b y

a m ag is tra te jud ge . The bu lkof t he Sto ry s’ bri ef o n app eal ass ert s v ari ou s ci vi l ri gh ts vi ol at io ns by bo thth e st at e an d fe de ral co urts , andrei te rat es th e p ro pr ie ty of th ei r at te m ptto
rem ov e th is cas e to fed eral co urt. Ho wev er, tho se arg um en ts are o ut si de th e sc op e of th is ap pe al , forth e o nl y

is su e b efo re u s i s wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n i n s an ct io ni ng th e St ory s. The St ory s h av e fai le d t o s ho w any su ch 1

“We re view a district c ourt’s aw ard of Rule 11 sanctions for a

buse of discr etion.” 1 Masseng ale v. Ray , 267 F.3d 1298, 1301 ( 11th Cir. 2001). “Unde r Rule 11, sanc tions are proper ly assessed when: (1) a

party filed a ple adingthat has no re asonable fac tual basis; (2) the party files a plea ding ba sed on a le g al theory that has no re asonable chanc e of suc cess a nd cannot be adva nced a s a re asonable argument to chang e existi nglaw; or (3) the par ty files a plea ding in bad fa ith for an imprope r purpose .” Thompson v. RelationServe Me dia, Inc., 610 F .3d 628, 637 n.12 (11th Cir. 2010). 3ab us e o f di sc ret io n. In de ed , th ey do no t co nt es t t he factua l b as is of t he di st ric t
co urt’s s an ct io ns ord er o r th e am ou ntof t he m on et ary sa nc ti on im po se d. Ra th er, th ey arg ue on ly tha t the y

lac ke d n ot ic e o f Deu ts ch e’s Ru le 11 m ot io n b efo re the
sa nc ti on s h eari ng , bu t t he reco rdrefl ect s t ha t t he co urt h adrep eat ed ly info rm ed th e St ory s t ha t i t was co ns id eri ng im po si ng san ct io ns ag ai ns t t he m , andth ey were gi ve n a m pl e o pp ortu ni ty (y etfai le d) to ex pl ai n wh y san ct io ns sh ou ldno t h av e be enim po se d. Th e St ory s al so ap pe ar t o c ha ll en ge th e co urt’s i nju nc ti on , bu t t he in jun ct io n was pl ai nl y

ne ces sary

to “pr ot ectag ai ns t [f

urth er] abu si ve an d
ve xa ti ou s l it ig at io n” co nduc t, an d i t d idno t co m pl et el y for ecl os e th ei r acc es s t o th e co urts . See Ma rti n- Trig on a v . Sha w, 98 6 F .2d13 84 , 13 87 (11 thCir . 19 93 ). In
su m , we hav e li tt le di ffi cu lt y co nc lu di ng th at , un de r th es e rathe r eg reg io us ci rcu m st an ces , th e d is tri ctco urt ac te d wel l wi th in it s d is cret io n b y im po si ng th e rel at iv el y m il d s an ct io ns itdi d. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

4