Court Opinion

ID: 9930401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 20:01:27.493497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:14:26.296566
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11434   Document: 39-1    Date Filed: 02/06/2024   Page: 1 of 6

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-11434
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       LISA REMBERT,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       DUNMAR ESTATES, DUNMAR ESTATES HOMEOWNER’S
       ASSOCIATION; FERDINANDSEN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
       D/B/A/ WORLD OF HOMES; EMPIRE MANAGEMENT
       GROUP, INC.; CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS; CITY OF WINTER
       SPRINGS CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD,

                                                Defendant-Appellees.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11434      Document: 39-1       Date Filed: 02/06/2024     Page: 2 of 6

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-11434

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 6:22-c-00877-CEM-LHP
                           ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Plaintiff-Appellant Lisa Rembert appeals from the district
       court’s sua sponte order dismissing her case without prejudice for
       failure to file a notice of pendency of other actions and disclosure
       statement and the district court’s order denying her motion for re-
       consideration. Rembert seeks equitable relief from what she ar-
       gues was an “arbitrary dismissal” of her case. After careful consid-
       eration, we affirm the district court’s dismissal.
                                          I
               Lisa Rembert first filed a lawsuit against the defendants in
       early 2022. That case was dismissed without prejudice by the dis-
       trict court because Rembert failed to comply with a local rule that
       required her to file a certificate of interested persons and corporate
       disclosure statement. Rembert appealed the dismissal, and we af-
       firmed. Rembert v. Dunmar Estates, No. 22-11526, 2022 WL
       17986207 (11th Cir. Dec. 29, 2022).
            While her first appeal was pending, Rembert filed the case
       now before us, raising substantially similar claims.
              Four days after she filed this lawsuit, the district court issued
       an initial order regarding case management and deadlines. In
USCA11 Case: 23-11434     Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 02/06/2024    Page: 3 of 6

       23-10585               Opinion of the Court                        3

       relevant part, the order required each party to comply “with Local
       Rule 1.07(c) and file a Notice of Pendency of Other Actions in the
       form on Judge Mendoza’s pages on the Middle District of Florida
       website.” The district court also separately issued a “notice to
       counsel and parties” stating that “[f]ailure to comply with any local
       rules or court orders may result in the imposition of sanctions in-
       cluding, but not limited to, the dismissal of this action or entry of
       default without further notice.”
              On the same day, Rembert filed a “Notice of Compliance,”
       in which she certified that she “conducted a due diligence review
       of the court website” and had “filed her Certificate of Interested
       Persons & Corporate Disclosure Statement in conformity there-
       with.” The notice was an attempt to “avoid further miscommuni-
       cation and conflict.” Rembert did not file any notice of related ac-
       tions. Over the next few months, defendants in this case filed their
       notices of related actions per Local Rule 1.07(c).
               Ten months after its initial case management order, the dis-
       trict court, upon sua sponte review of the case file, dismissed the
       case without prejudice due to Rembert’s failure to file her “Notice
       of Pendency of Other Actions and Disclosure Statement.” Rem-
       bert moved for reconsideration of the Order. The district court
       issued its order denying the motion for reconsideration. This ap-
       peal followed.
              On appeal, Rembert argues that the district court abused its
       discretion by dismissing her case for violating a local rule.
                                        II
USCA11 Case: 23-11434         Document: 39-1         Date Filed: 02/06/2024          Page: 4 of 6

       4                          Opinion of the Court                        23-11434

               Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs
       involuntary dismissals of federal cases. In general, involuntary dis-
       missals of complaints without prejudice are final, appealable or-
       ders. Justice v. United States, 6 F.3d 1474, 1481 (11th Cir. 1993). We
       review these dismissals for abuse of discretion. Foudy v. Indian River
       Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1122 (11th Cir. 2017). Though
       “dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of
       an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, gener-
       ally is not an abuse of discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835,
       837 (11th Cir. 1989).
              Rembert does not contest that she failed to meet the require-
       ments of the local rule or the court’s order. Rather, she argues that
       there was no justification for the sanction of dismissal. But we have
       “upheld sua sponte dismissals” for “failure to comply with court or-
       ders” in the past. Jefferson Fourteenth Assocs. v. Wometco de Puerto
       Rico, Inc., 695 F.2d 524, 526 (11th Cir. 1983).
              Rembert cites as controlling authority Woodham v. American
       Cytoscope Co. of Pelham, N.Y., where the court held that failure to
       comply with a local rule did not warrant dismissal of a complaint.
       335 F.2d 551, 552 (5th Cir. 1964). 1 In Woodham, the court deter-
       mined that dismissal was too harsh a sanction when an out-of-town
       lawyer failed to comply with the strictures of a local rule. Id. at
       556. That case is distinguishable from the facts here because, as we

       1 Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981, con-

       stitute binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661
       F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981).
USCA11 Case: 23-11434      Document: 39-1       Date Filed: 02/06/2024     Page: 5 of 6

       23-10585                Opinion of the Court                          5

       pointed out before, the out-of-town lawyer there was “unaware of”
       the local rules. Id. at 552; Rembert, No. 22-11526, at *1.
              Here, however, Rembert’s brief concedes that her counsel
       knew of Local Rule 1.07(c) and does not allege any lack of
       knowledge of the docket entry explaining the consequences of vi-
       olating Local Rule 1.07(c). But she argues that her “notice of com-
       pliance,” filed after the initial case management order, showed a
       “good faith” belief of compliance and an “apparent lack of aware-
       ness” that she had not met the requirements of Local Rule 1.07(c).
       Rembert also argues that because “most of the local judges . . . do
       not enforce Local Rule[] 1.07(c) in the same, stringent manner” as
       the judge did here, the district court had no justification for dismiss-
       ing the case. There was, according to Rembert, “no evidence of a
       failure to prosecute or of a repeated refusal to follow the court’s
       orders.”
              None of these arguments persuades us. “It was not an abuse
       of discretion to dismiss . . . due to plaintiff’s ‘personal inattention
       to this case.’” Rembert, 2022 WL 17986207 at *1 (quoting Martin-
       Trigona, 627 F.2d at 682). Rembert was on notice of the local rule
       when the district court issued its case management order, and she
       was also made aware that violations of the local rules could be
       cause for sua sponte dismissal in the district court’s subsequent or-
       der. The district court here did not abuse its discretion by entering
       an order of dismissal without additional warning to Rembert or her
       counsel. Because we have in the past declined to “serve as de facto
       counsel” even for pro se plaintiffs in similar contexts, we decline to
USCA11 Case: 23-11434         Document: 39-1         Date Filed: 02/06/2024          Page: 6 of 6

       6                          Opinion of the Court                        23-11434

       require the district court to do so here for Rembert or her counsel.
       Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.2d 1165, 1168–69 (11th Cir. 2014). It
       is within the power of a district court to dismiss cases if a party fails
       to comply with a court order, and Rembert has failed to show why
       dismissal was improper here. See Fed R. Civ P. 41(b); Betty K Agen-
       cies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). 2
                                       *       *       *
             Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by dis-
       missing Rembert’s claim without prejudice for failure to comply
       with court orders, we AFFIRM.

       2 Rembert also argues that, due to the nature of the complaint, “an unfair,

       biased district court judge could utilize the local rules of procedure” to dismiss
       her case. Rembert has presented no evidence of this in her brief, nor have we
       found any upon review of the record. Therefore, we do not address this issue.