From Rosen v. Tiffany of Bal Harbour Condominium Ass’n, Inc., determined yesterday by the Florida Courtroom of Attraction, in an opinion by Choose Monica ordo, joined by Chief Justice Ivan Fernandez and Justice Edwin A. Scales, III:
Rosen, a condominium proprietor at Tiffany, has beforehand filed a sequence of lawsuits alleging Tiffany was violating its affiliation guidelines, depriving its condominium house owners of their rights to elect members of the board, making defamatory feedback about Rosen and extra. In June 2018, Tiffany filed a grievance in opposition to Rosen searching for an injunction to forestall him from harassing, intimidating and making an attempt to manage Tiffany’s board of administrators and employees. Rosen filed a solution, affirmative defenses and counterclaims. After Tiffany amended its grievance in February 2020, Rosen once more filed a solution and affirmative defenses, this time elevating thirty separate counterclaims. Within the years between Tiffany’s authentic grievance and amended grievance, Rosen filed over eighty motions, responses and letters with the trial court docket—lots of which had been irrelevant to the case, reasserted claims that had been beforehand rejected, personally attacked opposing counsel and accused the presiding decide of misconduct.
All through the proceedings within the trial court docket, Rosen persistently engaged in overly contentious and litigious conduct. For instance, Rosen filed 5 motions to disqualify Tiffany’s counsel, 4 motions to impose sanctions in opposition to Tiffany’s counsel and 9 motions to disqualify the completely different trial court docket judges assigned to the case. Due to the variety of contentious filings by Rosen, the trial court docket was delayed in resolving the dispositive problems with the case and was typically compelled to order a complete day to listen to and rule on pending motions. Rosen has additionally filed no less than 4 petitions for a writ of prohibition earlier than this Courtroom. Throughout this time, Tiffany filed a movement to indicate trigger why Rosen shouldn’t be declared a vexatious litigant and/or required to have all future filings by him be made by a member of the Florida Bar in good standing.
The trial court docket held a listening to over this matter. On the listening to, each events offered proof and argument concerning Rosen’s conduct. The trial court docket granted the movement to indicate trigger discovering Rosen ceaselessly shouted at and disparaged opposing counsel, disrupted court docket proceedings and filed duplicitous motions. The trial court docket then entered an order discovering Rosen a vexatious litigant and directed the clerk of court docket to reject any additional filings by Rosen until executed by a member of the Florida Bar.
In June 2021, the trial court docket entered an order discovering Rosen in contempt of court docket for failing to adjust to a number of court docket orders. As sanctions, the trial court docket entered default judgment in opposition to Rosen and struck his counterclaim. A month later, the trial court docket entered closing judgment in favor of Tiffany. This enchantment adopted. Tiffany subsequently filed a movement to declare Rosen a vexatious appellate litigant with this Courtroom. Rosen didn’t file a response….
We discover Rosen has engaged in submitting frivolous, meritless and successive motions, and continues to hunt aid from this Courtroom on the identical points and arguments however prior opposed determinations on the deserves. Rosen’s improper actions have precipitated this Courtroom to expend finite judicial assets “which may in any other case be dedicated to instances elevating authentic claims.” Jimenez v. State (Fla. Ct. App. 2016) (“A authentic declare that will benefit aid is extra more likely to be ignored if buried inside a forest of frivolous claims.”).
Rosen has additionally repeatedly personally attacked opposing counsel, the presiding trial court docket decide and the members of this Courtroom in his filings. {Rosen has acknowledged the members of this Courtroom are “idiots,” “morons,” “dishonest” and “unprincipled.” He even claims, “once I die and go to hell, I need to see the whole third DCA panel there to greet me!”} Rosen repeatedly calls opposing counsel a liar, refers back to the trial court docket decide as vicious and vindictive and twice accuses the decide of inflicting his coronary heart assault. Whereas Rosen is just not a member of the Florida Bar, he was an legal professional in New York and subsequently must be conscious that such unprofessional conduct and offensive commentary in the direction of members of the judiciary and opposing counsel is unacceptable and warrants sanctions. The file clearly establishes that Rosen has repeatedly filed repetitious and frivolous pleadings, thereby diminishing this Courtroom’s skill to commit its finite assets to the consideration of authentic claims.
We acknowledge the Florida Structure gives all individuals the constitutional proper of entry to courts. See Artwork. I § 21, Fla. Const. (“The courts shall be open to each particular person for redress of any harm, and justice shall be administered with out sale, denial or delay.”). That proper, nevertheless, is just not unfettered. “A litigant’s proper to entry could also be correctly restricted if the litigant is abusing the authorized course of.” A professional se litigant “abuses the appropriate to professional se entry by submitting repetitious and frivolous pleadings, thereby diminishing the flexibility of the courts to commit their finite assets to the consideration of authentic claims.”
“This Courtroom has the inherent authority and obligation to strike a steadiness between a professional se litigant’s proper to take part within the judicial course of and a professional se litigant’s abuse of the judicial course of.” We discover this obligation clear on this case as on this enchantment alone, Rosen has filed duplicative emergency motions for partial abstract disposition, motions to remain, motions to disqualify the whole Courtroom from ruling on the moment enchantment and a number of motions for rehearing on these motions reasserting beforehand denied arguments. Rosen has beforehand been cautioned by this Courtroom in a number of orders that continued repetitive and frivolous filings may lead to an order prohibiting him from additional professional se filings….
Accordingly, we hereby prohibit Rosen from showing earlier than this Courtroom as an appellant or petitioner until represented by a member of the Florida Bar in good standing. The Clerk of this Courtroom is directed to reject any future professional se pleadings, petitions, motions, paperwork or different filings submitted by Samuel D. Rosen until such filings are signed by a member of the Florida Bar in good standing.