David F. Petrano v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company , 590 F. App'x 927 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •           Case: 13-11984   Date Filed: 11/04/2014   Page: 1 of 5
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    Nos. 13-11984, 13-13351, 13-13413, 13-14119
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-00086-SPM-GRJ
    DAVID F. PETRANO,
    MARY KATHERINE DAY-PETRANO,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    versus
    OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL
    TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
    Defendants,
    NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
    EARL CHARLES LAW,
    CARL SCHWAIT,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ________________________
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (November 4, 2014)
    Case: 13-11984     Date Filed: 11/04/2014   Page: 2 of 5
    Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    David Petrano and his wife, Mary Katherine Day-Petrano, appeal pro se the
    dismissal with prejudice of their amended complaint against Nationwide Mutual
    Fire Insurance Company, and two of its agents, Earl Charles Law and Carl
    Schwait. After the Petranos filed a complaint in a Florida court, Old Republic
    National Title Insurance Company removed the action based on federal question
    jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a). The district court dismissed the
    Petranos’ original complaint and their amended complaint for failure to comply
    with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The Petranos challenge the dismissal of
    their amended complaint; an award of $40,316 to Nationwide and Schwait; and the
    denial of their motions for sanctions and for relief from the final judgment. We
    affirm.
    The Petranos argue that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction
    to entertain their original complaint, but we disagree. Old Republic was entitled to
    remove the action because the Petranos’ complaint alleged violations of federal
    laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982,
    1985, 1986, 12112, 12182, the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Equal
    Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. Amend. 14. See 28
    U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a). Although Old Republic removed the action without
    2
    Case: 13-11984     Date Filed: 11/04/2014    Page: 3 of 5
    obtaining the express consent of at least one defendant, see 
    id. § 1446(b)(2)(A),
    the
    Petranos failed within 30 days to move to remand the action based on that non-
    jurisdictional defect in the removal procedure, see 
    id. § 1447(c).
    See In re Bethesda
    Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 
    123 F.3d 1407
    , 1410 (11th Cir. 1997). And the district court
    correctly denied the Petranos’ belated motion to remand the action because a final
    judgment had already been entered against them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed with
    prejudice the Petranos’ amended complaint. The dismissal of a complaint is an
    appropriate sanction when a plaintiff engages in “willful conduct and . . . lesser
    sanctions are inadequate,” Zocaras v. Castro, 
    465 F.3d 479
    , 483 (11th Cir. 2006),
    and the record supports the finding that the Petranos defiantly refused to comply
    with an order to amend their complaint to comply with the Federal Rule of Civil
    Procedure 8. The Petranos complained that about being discriminated against by
    public officials, federal and state agencies, insurance companies and their agents,
    and legal firms involved in claims for insurance benefits and in disputes over a
    contract and real property. A magistrate judge issued a 21-page order that
    described the complaint as a “shotgun pleading”; identified its deficiencies;
    explained how to remedy those deficiencies; and instructed the Petranos to file an
    amended complaint “limited to one—and only one—occurrence, which raises a
    federal claim.” In contravention to that order, the Petranos amended their
    3
    Case: 13-11984      Date Filed: 11/04/2014   Page: 4 of 5
    complaint by enlarging it from a 139-page pleading that alleged 17 claims against
    14 defendants to a 223-page pleading that alleged 16 claims against 157
    defendants. And when ordered to show cause why the amended complaint should
    not be dismissed, Mary Petrano moved to file a second amended complaint that
    was 204 pages long and alleged 19 claims against 156 defendants. The district
    court was entitled to find that the Petranos willfully disobeyed the court order and
    that the dismissal of the amended complaint was an appropriate sanction for their
    contumacious conduct. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 
    Zocaras, 465 F.3d at 483
    . The
    Petranos argue that they were incapable of complying with the rules of procedure,
    but the district court was entitled to find that the Petranos—at least one of whom is
    licensed to practice law in Florida— could comply with the rules of procedure.
    The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it awarded more than
    $40,000 in costs and attorney’s fees to Nationwide and Schwait. A district court
    may impose monetary sanctions if a party’s filings are frivolous and needlessly
    increase the cost of litigation, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b),(c), and the Petranos do not
    dispute the finding that they required Nationwide and Schwait to respond to
    “repeated frivolous claims” and motions for sanctions that were “devoid of merit,
    frivolous, and retaliatory and vexatious in nature.” The Petranos fail to explain
    how the district court “made a clear error of judgment[] or . . . applied the wrong
    legal standard” when it awarded damages to Nationwide and Schwait. Amlong &
    4
    Case: 13-11984      Date Filed: 11/04/2014    Page: 5 of 5
    Amlong, P.A. v. Denny’s, Inc., 
    500 F.3d 1230
    , 1238 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Maiz
    v. Virani, 
    253 F.3d 641
    , 662 (11th Cir. 2001)).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Petranos’
    six motions for sanctions and their motion for relief from the final judgment. The
    Petranos argue that the district court denied summarily their motions for sanctions,
    but the district court explained in its rulings that the motions lacked factual and
    legal merit. And the district court was entitled to dismiss summarily the Petranos’
    motion for relief from the judgment in which they argued that Nationwide and its
    agents fraudulently induced the district court to dismiss the amended complaint.
    See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The district court plainly dismissed the complaint for the
    Petranos’ failure to file a short and plain statement for relief, 
    id. 8(a), and
    their
    willful disregard of a court order, 
    id. 41(b). We
    AFFIRM the dismissal of the Petranos’ amended complaint and the
    award of sanctions against them.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-14119

Citation Numbers: 590 F. App'x 927

Filed Date: 11/4/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023