Karwel v. City of Palm Bay et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 14 motion to stay. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 5/29/2015. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
SANDRA KANE KARWEL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:15-cv-597-Orl-37KRS

CITY OF PALM BAY; JOSEPH POTEAT; SHERRY
POTEAT; BOB WILLIAMS; LEE FELDMAN; SUSAN HANN;
ANDREW LANNON; WILLIAM CAPOTE; PALM BAY
POLICE DEPARTMENT; DOUGLAS MULDOON; NEIL
VALENTI; YVONNE MARTINEZ; RICKY WORONKA;
CHRISTOPHER RICHARDS; STEVE SHYTLE; SHANE M.
CARROLL; MICHAEL BANDISH; CAROL VAZQUEZ;
ROBERT VICKERS; ROBERT RAMA; STEVE HILL; SEAN
MERTENS; EDWIN LUTZ; TROY RAMIREZ; MARK
FOSKEY;
HEDI HUNTER;
PALM BAY CODE
ENFORCEMENT; ANGELICA MARTINEZ; JOHN DEVIVO;
VAL CARTER; PALM BAY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT;
SUZANNE SHERMAN; RE SUPPORT SERVICES;
TRASSA GEACH; BREVARD TAX COLLECTOR; LISA
CULLEN; BREVARD PROPERTY APPRAISER; DANA
BLICKLEY; BREVARD CLERK OF COURT; SCOTT ELLIS;
STATE ATTORNEY OF BREVARD COUNTY; PHIL
ARCHER; TYLER CHASEZ; MELISSA PEAT; MICHAEL J.
CANNON; WILL SCHEINER; JULIA A. LYNCH; SEAN M.
SENRA; JASON A. HICKS; PAUL WIGHT; PALM BAY
HOSPITAL INC.; DAVID MATHIAS; SPACE COAST
CREDIT UNION; DOUGLAS R. SAMUELS; BANK OF
AMERICA, GENERAL COUNSEL; PSYCHOLOGICAL
ASSOCIATES OF MELBOURNE; WENDE J. ANDERSON;
ELISABETH BEASLEY; ADVANCED TOWING; LAW
OFFICE OF FRESE, HANSEN, ANDERSON, ANDERSON,
HEUSTON AND WHITEHEAD; GREG HANSEN; GARY
FRESE; WESH 2, GENERAL COUNSEL; WFTV 9,
GENERAL COUNSEL; NEW 13, GENERAL COUNSEL;
FLORIDA TODAY NEWSPAPER, GENERAL COUNSEL;
BESS, BLOUGOURAS, JONES, AND FREYBERG, P.A.;
CAROL BESS; ROSE MARIE JUDISINGH; JANE DOE;
JOHN DOE; and CINDY,
Defendants.

ORDER
This cause is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Sandra Kane Karwel’s
“emergency” 1 motion to stay state-court eviction proceedings, specifically case number
05-2013-CA-029797 in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Brevard County, Florida.
(See Doc. 14, p. 2.)
In violation of Local Rule 3.01(a), Plaintiff fails to provide “a memorandum of legal
authority in support” of the requested stay. (See id.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s motion does not
contain enough factual information for the Court to determine whether her request
implicates the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal district courts from reviewing
“cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court
judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.” Exxon Mobil
Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). For those reasons, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s motion is due to be denied.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s motion
(Doc. 14) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on May 29, 2015.

1

This is the second time that Plaintiff has labeled a motion as an “emergency”
without specifically articulating why the motion requires expedited relief. (See Docs. 12,
14.) The Court reminds Plaintiff that the “unwarranted designation of a motion as an
emergency motion may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Local Rule 3.01(e).

2

Copies:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Party

3