Lafortune et al v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al

Filing 5

ORDER denying as moot 4 Motion for Reconsideration. This case shall remain closed. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 1/2/2018. (JJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
MITSOU LAFORTUNE and
DAMOCLES LAFORTUNE,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-1397-J-32JBT

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., as
trustee on behalf of the holder of the
Harborview mortgage loan trust
pass-through certificate, certificate
series 2007-1, SELECT
PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC.,
and ALBERTELLI LAW FIRM,
Defendants.

ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration
Judges Decission [sic] and in the Alternative to Vacate Order of Dismisal [sic]
(Doc. 4). On December 15, 2017, pro se Plaintiffs filed a “Verified Motion for
Issuance of Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and Imposition to
Permanent Injunction to Stay the Sale Scheduled for December 18, 2017”
(“TRO”) (Doc. 1). The TRO sought to have the Court restrain the foreclosure
sale of Plaintiffs’ home, which was scheduled for December 18, 2017. (Doc. 1).

After review, the Court denied the TRO because Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate
a likelihood of success on the merits. (Doc. 3 at 2). Plaintiffs now seek
reconsideration of that denial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
(Doc. 4 at 1).
Plaintiffs never filed a complaint in this case. Thus, when reviewing the
TRO, the Court reviewed the complaint filed by Plaintiffs in case number 3:17cv-1067-J-32JBT, which also has Wells Fargo and Select Portfolio Servicing as
defendants. 1 (See Notice of Removal, Doc. 1 in case no. 3:17-cv-1067-J-32JBT).
After denying the TRO, the Court also dismissed the complaint in 3:17-cv-1067J-32JBT for failure to prosecute. (See Doc. 16 in case no. 3:17-cv-1067).
On December 15, 2017, the same day the Court denied the TRO, Plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal in their State foreclosure case. See Notice of Appeal,
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Amocles Lafortune, et. al., no. 2016-CA-000934 (Fla.
4th Cir. Ct. Dec. 15, 2017). The appeal still requires payment of the filing fee or
for Plaintiffs to file documentation of indigency. See Order, Lafortune v. Wells
Fargo Bank N.A., no. 1D17-5321 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 20, 2017). Additionally, the
underlying foreclosure sale, which Plaintiffs sought to restrain, occurred on
December 18, 2017. (See Certificate of Sale, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Amocles

Case 3:17-cv-1067 also has Bank of America N.A. listed as a defendant,
but apparently they have yet to be served. (See Doc. 15 in case 3:17-cv-1067).
Case 3:17-cv-1067 does not have Albertelli Law Firm as a defendant.
1

2

Lafortune, et. al., no. 2016-CA-000934 (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. Dec. 18, 2017). Because
Plaintiffs seek to restrain an action that has already occurred, this motion is
moot. 2
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Judges Decission [sic] and in the
Alternative to Vacate Order of Dismisal [sic] (Doc. 4) is DENIED as moot. This
case will remain closed.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 2nd day of
January, 2018.

jb
Copies to:
Counsel of record

Plaintiffs claim that they are victims of fraud because they never knew
that case 3:17-cv-1067 had been removed. (Doc. 4 ¶ 6). Even if Defendants did
not properly serve the Notice of Removal (Doc. 1 in case 3:17-cv-1067) or Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 12 in case 3:17-cv-1067) on Plaintiffs, the Court mailed seven
different Orders to Plaintiffs at the same address that Plaintiffs received Doc.
3 in this case. Thus, Plaintiffs’ argument that they did not realize their case had
been removed is unpersuasive.
2

3