[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 20

- 14872
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
In re: ANDREA ROSEN LIEBMAN,
Debtor.

___________________________________________________ ANDREA LIEBMAN,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, FUTURA MIAMI INVEST , LLC,

Defendants

- Appellees. USCA11 Case: 20-14872 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 1 of 52 Opinion of the Court 20

- 14872

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:20

- cv

- 20322

- RNS

____________________ Before W ILLIAM P RYOR , Chief Judge, W ILSON , and A NDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is Andrea Liebman’s second pro se appeal concerning her petition to declare bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code and t he foreclosure sale of her property. Liebman challenges orders affirm ing the denial of her motion for relief from a judgment refus ing to reinstate her bankruptcy cas e or to retroactively stay the sale of her property
, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, and her motion to stay the disbursement of funds from the foreclosure sale. We affirm.“As the second court to review the judgment of the bankruptcy court, we review the order[s] of the bankruptcy court independently of the district court.” In re TOUSA, Inc. , 680 F.3d 1298, 1310 (11th Cir. 2012). We review the denial of Liebman’s motion for relief under Fed eral R ule of Civ il P rocedure 60 for abuse of discretion. In re Glob. Energies, LLC , 763 F.3d 1341, 1347 (11th Cir. 2014). We review the decision to deny Liebman’s motion to stay the disbursement of funds de novo and its related findings of fact USCA11 Case: 20-14872 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 2 of 520

- 14872 Opinion of the Court 3

for clear error. See In re McLean , 794 F.3d 1313, 1318 (11th Cir. 2015).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Liebman’s postjudgment motion for relief. Because Liebman’s motion challenged a judgment that we affirmed in her fi rst appeal, t he doctrine of the law of the case bars us from considering that judgment a second time in the absence of any contrary controlling authority or a clear error in the decision

. See United States v. Stein
, 964 F.3d 1313, 132 2

– 2 3 (11th Cir. 2020)

. In the earlier appeal, w econcluded that Liebman presented no “arguments or evidence suggesting that the bankruptcy court erred by refusing to reinstate her case” or “inappropriately applied . . . the factors [it had to] consider in dete rmining whether to grant [her] a retroactive stay.” Liebman v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.
, 772 F. App’x 839 , 841 (11 th Cir. June 7, 2019). The judgment of the bankruptcy court, which Liebman declined to challenge “in a subsequent appeal when the opp ortunity existed, bec[ame] the law of the case for . . . [her postjudgment] litigation . . . .” See Stein , 964 F.3d at 1324 (quoting United States v. Escobar

- Urrego , 110 F.3d 1556, 1560 (11th Cir. 1997))

. Liebman argues that the bankruptcy court us ed a nu nc pro
tunc order in violation of R oman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Acevedo Feliciano , 140 S. Ct. 696 (2020) , but we disagree

. In Acevedo
, the Supreme Court reached the unremarkable conclusion that a state court lost jurisdiction to issue orders in an action that had been removed to federal court and was awaiting USCA11 Case: 20-14872 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 3 of 54 Opinion of the Court 20

- 14872

remand

. Id. at 69 9

– 70 1 ; s ee 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) (“ after the filing of [a] notice of removal

. . . the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded” )

. T he Supreme Court also conclud ed that a nunc pro tunc order entered by the federal court, which impermissibly “revis [ed] history” by backdating to March 2018 its decision in August 2018 to remand, could not retroactively confer jurisdiction to the state court

. Id. at 700

– 0 1. In contrast, t he nunc pro tunc order the bankruptcy court entered in Liebman’s

case “reflect [ed] the reality of what [had] already occu r red.” See id. (internal quotation marks omitted) . The nunc pro tunc order clarifi ed that the reinstatement of Liebman’s bankruptcy case had not

re imposed the automatic stay, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(B) (dismissal terminates the automatic stay), and
, in the alternative, that t he bankruptcy court had condition ed the stay on Liebman submitting

a confirmable Chapter 13 plan
, see id

. § 362(d) (giving a bankruptcy

court power to “ gran t relief from the stay . . ., such as by t erminating, annulling, modifying, or conditioning such stay” ). Acevedo is
not a contrary decision of law applicable to th is action

. The bankruptcy court did not err by denying Liebman’s motion to stay the disbursem ent o f funds

. Liebman moved for a stay to demand p unitive damages against h er loan servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, b ut the bankruptcy court rule d that “no grounds . . . support[ed] ” Liebman’s argument that Ocwen willfully violated the automatic stay w hen it accepted the proceeds from the foreclosure sale. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1 )

. Punitive sanctions are appropriate only if a party acts with reckless or callous USCA11 Case: 20-14872 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 4 of 520

- 14872 Opinion of the Court 5 disregard for the law or rights of others

. In re McL ean , 794 F.3d 1313, 1325 (11th Cir. 2015). Liebman accused Ocwen of “conceal[ing] . . . information, [and committing] fraud upon the Court,” but the record supports the contrary finding of the bankruptcy court that Ocwen had “done nothing wrong.” After t he bankruptcy court lifted the stay
, Ocwen was not barred from accepting the proceeds

. W e cannot say that the bankruptcy court erred in determining that, because “the facts of record do not support an award of damages,” “no reasonable basis [existed] to stay the disbursements” to Ocwen.
We AFFIRM the denial of Liebman’s postjudgment motions. USCA11 Case: 20-14872 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 5 of 5