FOLEY
v.
ORANGE COUNTY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiffs should be declared vexatious litigants and restricted from filing new cases due to their history of frivolous and harassing litigation.
Plaintiffs' prior case was dismissed with prejudice. Following dismissal, defendants moved for sanctions and to declare plaintiffs vexatious litigants…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
The Court previously dismissed the pro se Plaintiffs’ case with prejudice on the basis of res judicata. (Doc. 70.) The Employee Defendants1 then moved for sanctions against Plaintiffs. (Doc. 73; see Doc. 90.) And all Defendants moved to declare Plaintiffs vexatious litigants, on the ground that they have continued to
entered a Report and Recommendation submitting that the Court should decline to impose monetary sanctions but should declare Plaintiffs vexatious litigants and restrict their ability to file additional lawsuits in federal court. (Doc. 151 (“R&R”).)
Plaintiffs then objected to the R&R on the ground that their history of litigation was not frivolous and they filed the suits in good faith. (Doc. 154.) Orange County (Doc. 157)2 and the Official Defendants3 (Doc. 159) responded in support of the R&R. After an independent de novo review of the record, the motions, and the objection, the Court agrees with Judge Kidd’s R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Ernest S. ex rel. Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F. 2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990).
Not only has Plaintiffs’ continued pursuit of this litigation been ill-fated (as this Court and others have told them repeatedly), harassing to Defendants, and highly burdensome to the Court, but Plaintiffs have also lobbed ad hominem
insults at Defendants and the Court along the way. (See Doc. 104.) It is time for this to stop. See Patterson v. Aiken, 841 F. 2d 386, 387 (11th Cir. 1988) (“[O]ne acting pro
objections have no merit, as Judge Kidd’s thorough and well-reasoned examination of the relevant factors strongly supports the finding that this litigation is vexatious. (Doc. 151, pp. 6–10; see Doc. 104); Ray v. Lowder, No. 5:02-cv-316,
2003 WL 22384806, at *2–3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2003). The Undersigned’s long history with Plaintiffs suggests that restricting their filing privileges is the only way to deter them from continuing this nonmeritorious “obsessive litigation,” as Judge Kidd aptly put it. (Doc. 151, p. 10.)
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. The Objection (Doc. 154) is OVERRULED. 2. Plaintiffs’ attendant request for oral argument (Doc. 156) is DENIED
AS MOOT.
3. The R&R (Doc. 151) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of this Order in its entirety.
4. The vexatious litigants motion (Doc. 100) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: a. The motion is GRANTED in that Plaintiffs are DESIGNATED vexatious litigants. Plaintiffs David W. Foley, Jr. and Jennifer T.
Foley are hereby restricted from filing any pleading to open a new case in this Division. Any new pleading filed by these Plaintiffs in this Division will be assigned to and reviewed by the judges assigned to this case. See In re Vexatious Litigants in Orlando Div., No. 6:23-mc-3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2023) (Doc. 1). b. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. 5. The sanctions motion (Doc. 73) is DENIED AS MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on July 24, 2023.
/]
United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. OF Educ. OF State OF Ga., 896 F.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990)
- Patterson v. Aiken, 841 F.2d 386 (11th Cir. 1988)