MATTIE LOMAX, APPELLANT,
v.
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fla. R. App. P. 9.410 cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion to Require Pro Se Appellant to Obtain Counsel
After consideration of Appellee’s motion to require pro se Appellant to obtain counsel, Appellant’s response thereto, and independent review of Appellant’s multiple filings in this court, we grant Appellee’s motion under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410. See also May v. Barthet, 934 So.2d 1184 (Fla.2006) (prohibiting future pro se filings as sanctions for filing frivolous appeals); Jenkins v. Motorola, Inc., 62 So.3d 1210 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Sibley v. Sibley, 885 So.2d 980, 985-88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Appellant, Mattie Lomax, is hereby prohibited from filing further pro se proceedings in this court regarding foreclosure and/or eviction from property located at 123 and 1391/2 NW 15 Street, Miami, Florida, unless represented by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.
Further, Appellant shall have thirty days from the date of this order to retain an attorney to file a notice of appearance in this matter. If the notice is not filed within that time, this appeal will be dismissed.
Motion granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lomax v. Officer Reynolds of the City of Miami Police Dep't & Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 119 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…Walmart, each order finding Lomax to be a vexatious litigant and precluding further pro se filings). This determination broadens our prior prohibition on Lomax’s self-representation in this Court, set forth in Lomax v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 100 So. 3d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012): After consideration of Appellee’s motion to require pro se Appellant to obtain counsel, Appellant’s response thereto, and independent review of Appellant’s multiple filings in this court, we grant Appellee’s motion under Florida…
Authorities Cited
- Montgomery Blair Sibley v. Sibley, 885 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Callard v. Braulio L. Baez, 934 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 2006)
- MAY v. Barthet, 934 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 2006)
- Oza B. Jenkins v. Motorola, Inc., 62 So. 3d 1210 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- First Union Mortg. Funding, Inc. v. Diaz, 62 So. 3d 1210 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)