ARMANDO RIVAS, PETITIONER,
v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, RESPONDENT.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court denied Armando Rivas's petition for discretionary jurisdiction and imposed sanctions prohibiting him from filing pro se pleadings in the Court pertaining to his foreclosure proceedings with The Bank of New York Mellon unless represented by Florida Bar counsel, due to his pattern of meritless and abusive filings.
The Court denied Rivas's petition for discretionary jurisdiction and imposed sanctions prohibiting him from filing any future pro se pleadings, motions, or documents pertaining to his foreclosure proceedings in Palm Beach County Circuit Court unless represented by Florida Bar counsel, after finding his response to the show cause order failed to demonstrate grounds against such sanctions.
[1] A court may sanction a pro se litigant by prohibiting future pro se filings after providing notice and an opportunity to respond.
[2] A litigant's history of numerous meritless and inappropriate pro se filings can justify a prohibition on future pro se submissions.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Rivas has compiled a history of pro se filings in this Court that were devoid of merit or inappropriate for review.”
Establishes the basis for the sanctions imposed against Rivas.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRivas filed numerous pro se actions in the Florida Supreme Court against The Bank of New York Mellon relating to foreclosure proceedings in Palm Beach…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice And Opportunity To Respond cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court on the petition of Armando Rivas to invoke this Court's discretionary jurisdiction based on express and direct conflict. We have considered the jurisdictional briefs and portions of the record deemed necessary to reflect jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution and hereby deny the petition.
Due to his numerous meritless and inappropriate filings in this Court pertaining to his foreclosure proceedings in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida,1 during the pendency of his petition for jurisdiction in this case, Rivas was directed to show cause why he should not be barred from filing in this Court any future pro se pleadings, motions, or other requests for relief pertaining to his foreclosure proceedings in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit.2 Rivas has filed a response to the order to show cause.
After considering Rivas's response, we conclude that it fails to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. Rivas has compiled a history of pro se filings in this Court that were devoid of merit or inappropriate for review.
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Armando Rivas pertaining to his foreclosure proceedings in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Counsel may file on Rivas's *615behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith.3
It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sonnett Humes v. Haresh Solanki, M.D., 305 So. 3d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…t has also followed Spencer before issuing an order barring a pro se civil litigant from further pleadings in a case before that Court unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Rivas v. Bank of New York Mellon, 239 So. 3d 614, n.2 (Fla. 2018) (“ See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) (stating that a court must first provide notice and an opportunity to respond before sanctioning a litigant and prohibiting litigant from future pro se filings).”); Lomax v. Tay…
-
Jackson v. State, 273 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 2019)…for abusing the scarce judicial resources of this Court. See, e.g., Wetzel v. Travelers Cos., Inc., 267 So. 3d 978 (Fla. 2019); Shirah v. State, 257 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2018); Woodson v. State, 242 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 2018); Rivas v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 239 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2018). - 3 - No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by the Court. It is so ordered. CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, LUCK, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur. Application for Review of the Decision of the Distric…
-
Gaffney v. Baumann (Fla. 2025)…espondent 1 1. In recent years, we have imposed comparable sanctions on other litigants whose pro se filing practices have exhibited their disregard for abusing the scarce judicial resources of this Court. See, e.g., Rivas v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 239 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2018); Fla. Bar v. Petrano, 153 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2014); Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2009); Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008); Sibley v. Fla. Jud. Qualifications Comm’n, 973 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2006). - 3 - ---PAGE 3---…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Pettway v. McNEIL, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008)
- Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2009)
- Johnson v. Rundle, 59 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 2011)
- James v. Tucker, 75 So. 3d 231 (Fla. 2011)
- McCUTCHEON v. State, 117 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 2013)
- Annamarie Riethmiller v. Riethmiller, 133 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 2013)