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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?