District Court Procedures
The FTC filed an issue against Lanier, Robles, Rennick, Lanier Law, and also the D.C. businesses, alleging which they had sold and marketed home loan help relief solutions in breach of part 5(a) associated with the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 4 the Mortgage Assistance Relief solutions Rule (legislation O) (MARS Rule), 5 additionally the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). 6 especially, the FTC alleged the defendants had misrepresented their capability to have mortgage adjustments, charged consumers advance charges, neglected to consist of necessary disclosures in their communications, initiated calls in breach for the TSR, and neglected to spend the mandatory charges to gain access to the nationwide Do-Not-Call list.
The FTC relocated for summary judgment, as well as the region court granted the movement. The court figured the defendants violated area 5 of this FTCA by simply making product misrepresentations that caused significant customer harm and also by breaking the MARS Rule plus the TSR. The region court determined that the defendants violated the MARS Rule if they demanded and received costs with regards to their solutions prior to doing any work; misrepresented the chances of getting that loan modification, specially with regards to reductions in monthly premiums, interest levels, and major balances; and didn’t make appropriate disclosures. Finally, the court determined that Lanier had been independently responsible for the acts associated with entities that are corporate. 7 The region court determined that their authority and control of the defendants and their understanding of their methods put him вЂњsquarely in the center with this misleading enterprise,вЂќ making him individually responsible for the misconduct. Purchase at 72-74 (Doc. 281).
On August 12, 2016, the region court entered a permanent injunction against Lanier and their co-defendants. The region court additionally joined judgment in support of the FTC into the number of $13 https://badcreditloanshelp.net/payday-loans-ga/buford/,586,713. That is Lanier’s appeal. 8
On October 10, 2016, Lanier filed a prompt notice of appeal, by which he described himself plus the entities comprising Lanier Law due to the fact вЂњLanier DefendantsвЂќ:
Defendant, Lanier Law, et al., hereinafter the вЂњLanier Defendants,вЂќ hereby appeals towards the usa Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit through the judgment that is final of District Court dated August 12, 2016 therefore the Order of July 7, 2016 вЂ¤
Notice of Appeal (Doc. 303). Following the appeal had been docketed, Lanier attempted to enter a look on the behalf of himself and Lanier Law in this Court, however the Clerk returned the shape unfiled because Lanier’s application for admission into the Eleventh Circuit club was in fact rejected.
In reaction, on 29, 2016, Lanier filed an amended notice of appeal in the district court november:
Defendant, Michael W. Lanier, Esq, separately, вЂ¤ hereby appeals into the united states of america Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit вЂ¤ Lanier is admitted to train prior to the Federal District Court, but ended up being rejected admission to rehearse into the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals also as pro hac vice admission here.
Am. Notice of Appeal (Doc. 309). In a page into the Court, Lanier explained that their amended appeal was designed to вЂњreflectвЂќ which he would вЂњrepresent himself, pro se, and therefore none associated with the corporate (Lanier) defendants would join him within the appeal.вЂќ Lanier Law ended up being dismissed through the appeal.
As the appeal ended up being pending, this Court asked the events to handle whether Lanier’s 29, 2016, amended notice of appeal was timely to appeal from the district court’s final judgment on behalf of Lanier personally november. After briefing by both events, the Court determined it was maybe perhaps not, but reserved the concern of whether Lanier’s 10, 2016 notice on behalf of вЂњLanier Law, et al.вЂќ perfected his appeal in his personal capacity october.