Procedural Background

District Court Procedures

The FTC filed a grievance against Lanier, Robles, Rennick, Lanier Law, in addition to D.C. companies, alleging which they had sold and marketed home loan support relief services in breach of area 5(a) associated with the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 4 the home loan Assistance Relief solutions Rule (legislation O) (MARS Rule), 5 in addition to Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). 6 particularly, the FTC alleged the defendants had misrepresented their capability to get home loan improvements, charged consumers advance charges, did not add needed 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, therefore the region court granted the movement. The court determined that the defendants violated area 5 for the FTCA by simply making product misrepresentations that caused substantial customer damage and also by breaking the MARS Rule plus the TSR. The region court determined that the defendants violated the MARS Rule once they demanded and received costs with regards to their solutions just before doing any work; misrepresented the chances of getting that loan modification, particularly pertaining to reductions in monthly obligations, interest levels, and major balances; and neglected to make appropriate disclosures. Finally, the court determined that Lanier had been independently responsible for the functions regarding the business entities. 7 The region court determined that their authority and control of the defendants and their understanding of their methods put him “squarely during the center of the enterprise that is deceptive” making him individually accountable for the misconduct. Purchase at 72-74 (Doc. 281).

On August 12, 2016, the region court entered an injunction that is permanent Lanier along with his co-defendants. The region court additionally joined judgment and only the FTC when you look at the level of $13,586,713. This will be Lanier’s appeal. 8

Appellate Procedures

On October 10, 2016, Lanier filed a notice that is timely of, for which he known himself additionally the entities comprising Lanier Law while the “Lanier Defendants”:

Defendant, Lanier Law, et al., hereinafter the “Lanier Defendants,” hereby appeals to the usa Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit through the judgment that is final of District Court dated August 12, 2016 additionally the purchase of July 7, 2016 ․

Notice of Appeal (Doc. 303). Following the appeal ended up being docketed, Lanier attempted to enter a look with respect to himself and Lanier Law in this Court, however the form was returned by the Clerk 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, ․ hereby appeals towards the united states of america Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ․ Lanier is admitted to rehearse prior to the Federal District Court, but ended up being denied admission to apply into the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals also as pro hac vice admission here.

Am. Notice of Appeal (Doc. 309). In a page to your Court, Lanier explained that their amended appeal was meant to “reflect” he would “represent himself, pro se, and that none associated with corporate (Lanier) defendants would join him within the appeal.” Lanier Law ended up being dismissed through payday loans Asheboro open sundays the appeal.

As the appeal ended up being pending, this Court asked the events to handle whether Lanier’s November 29, 2016, amended notice of appeal ended up being prompt to attract through the region court’s last judgment with respect to Lanier actually. After briefing by both events, the Court determined it was maybe perhaps maybe not, but reserved the concern of whether Lanier’s October 10, 2016 notice on the part of “Lanier Law, et al.” perfected their appeal inside the individual ability.