Baumann et al v. Bank of America, N.A et al
ORDER denying 61 Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate Void Orders. All dates and deadlines in 60 the Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order remain in effect. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 10/18/2016. (SEN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JAMES E. BAUMANN and DEBORA K.
Case No: 6:15-cv-1951-Orl-40GJK
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A and PROBER
This cause comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Void
Orders (Doc. 61), filed October 14, 2016. In their motion, Plaintiffs contend that the Court
should vacate three orders which were entered after Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
Plaintiffs reason that, as a result of their appeal, this Court no longer had jurisdiction over
this matter when the orders were entered. Plaintiffs’ motion will be denied for two
First, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate fails to comply with the Court’s Local Rules, which
provide, in pertinent part, as follows:
Before filing any motion in a civil case, except a motion for
injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary
judgment, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class
action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, or to involuntarily dismiss an action, the
moving party shall confer with counsel for the opposing party
in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion,
and shall file with the motion a statement (1) certifying that the
moving counsel has conferred with opposing counsel and
(2) stating whether counsel agree on the resolution of the
M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(g). 1 Plaintiffs fail to indicate whether they contacted opposing counsel
in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in their motion and, if so, the results of
that good faith conference. Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g) is reason
enough to deny the relief they seek.
Notwithstanding their noncompliance with the Court’s Local Rules, Plaintiffs’
Motion to Vacate must also be denied on its merits because Plaintiffs’ purported appeal
of this case does not deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Absent special
circumstances which are not present in this case, “the courts of appeals have jurisdiction
for appeals from final orders only.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Kissimmee Util. Auth., 153 F.3d
1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Consequently, a party cannot appeal “even
from fully consummated decisions, where [the decisions] are but steps towards final
judgment in which they will merge.” Id. (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949)). The purpose of this general rule limiting appeals only to final
orders and judgments is so that all stages of the litigation can be combined into a single
review for the appellate court, thus avoiding piecemeal reviews which disserve judicial
economy. See id.
Here, Plaintiffs have filed three notices of appeal which seek interlocutory review
of various non-final orders. Specifically, Plaintiffs appeal from orders granting in part and
denying in part Defendants’ motions to dismiss, denying Plaintiffs’ motions for
reconsideration, directing the Clerk of Court to terminate certain parties against whom no
claims are pending, extending certain scheduling deadlines, and entering an Amended
Plaintiffs may access the Court’s Local Rules at https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/
Case Management and Scheduling Order. Because none of these orders constitute final
orders from which Plaintiffs are entitled to appeal, and because no exception to the finality
requirement applies, 2 this Court retains jurisdiction over the subject matter until final
judgment is entered.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Void
Orders (Doc. 61) is DENIED. The parties are advised that all dates and deadlines in the
Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 60), including the trial term,
remain in effect.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 18, 2016.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
The Court notes that the only argument Plaintiffs make in their Motion to Vacate is
that the disputed orders must be vacated because Plaintiffs filed notices of appeal.
Accordingly, even if the Court liberally construed Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate as a
motion to certify an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), Plaintiffs
offer no reason for the Court to certify such an appeal.
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?