MB REO-FL Church-2, LLC v. Tampa For Christ Church, Inc. et al

Filing 92

ORDER: Pro se Defendant Frank M. Bafford's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 80 ) is denied. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/12/2016. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MB REO-FL CHURCH-2, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-276-T-33AEP

TAMPA FOR CHRIST CHURCH, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on consideration of
pro se Defendant Frank M. Bafford’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
# 80), filed on July 20, 2016. Plaintiff MB Reo-FL Church-2,
LLC filed its response in opposition on August 11, 2016. (Doc.
# 91).1 For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied.
Discussion
Following an unsuccessful attempt at purchasing property
from MB Reo, Bafford filed two documents in the land records
of Hillsborough County, seeking to “inform[] all interested
parties

that

there’s

a

pending

housing

discrimination

1

Although MB Reo filed its response out of time, the Court
nonetheless accepts the response given counsel’s response to
the Court’s Order to show cause. (Doc. ## 89, 91 at 1). The
Court, however, takes this opportunity to remind counsel that
the Court expects diligent compliance with all deadlines.

1 

complaint . . . seeking a determination of his rights” to the
properties listed by MB Reo. (Doc. ## 1-14, 1-15). MB Reo
thereafter

instituted

this

action

on

February

4,

2016,

seeking to quiet title, damages for slander of title, and
declaratory judgment. (Doc. # 1).
Bafford responded by filing a motion to dismiss or,
alternatively,
investigation

to
by

stay
the

pending

Department

the
of

outcome

Housing

and

of

an

Urban

Development. (Doc. # 9). After being briefed on the motion,
the Court denied Bafford’s motion in its entirety at the Case
Management Hearing held on March 21, 2016. (Doc. # 20).
Bafford subsequently filed a handful of other motions, an
answer, and a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. ## 24, 26,
28, 30, 31, 35). Except for granting extensions of time for
Bafford and Tampa for Christ Church to retain counsel, the
Court denied each motion. (Doc. ## 25, 27, 29, 36, 49).
Currently before the Court is yet another motion filed
by Bafford wherein he seeks dismissal of the action or a stay
pending the outcome of the administrative proceedings vis-àvis his housing discrimination complaint. Most of Bafford’s
arguments are repetitive and, as to those that are new,
Bafford has not demonstrated they were unavailable at the
time he originally moved the Court for the relief he again

2 

seeks.

Accordingly,

Bafford’s

Motion

is

denied.

See

Continental Motors, Inc. v. Jewell Aircraft, Inc., No. 120221-WS-C, 2013 WL 5530842, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2013)
(declining to revisit arguments previously addressed and
stating “insofar as [defendant] may renew its motion . . . in
the future, such a motion will be summarily denied absent an
affirmative showing that the grounds for relief specified
therein were unavailable at the time of its original motion
. . .”).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Pro se Defendant Frank M. Bafford’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. # 80) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
12th day of August, 2016.

3