Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • East Okeechobee Palms, LLC v. Richard Kellam, 11th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants and denial of the plaintiffs' motion for post-judgment relief. The district court had dismissed the amended complaint filed by East Okeechobee Palms, LLC and Lakeside Palm Beach East MHP, LLC against Richard Kellam, ARCAP LC, Lakeside Agency, and Company Manager LC for lack of personal jurisdiction. It later denied the plaintiffs' motion for relief under Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Eleventh Circuit found no error in either of the district court's orders.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-02-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-14385

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants and denial of the plaintiffs' motion for post-judgment relief. The district court had dismissed the amended complaint filed by East Okeechobee Palms, LLC and Lakeside Palm Beach East MHP, LLC against Richard Kellam, ARCAP LC, Lakeside Agency, and Company Manager LC for lack of personal jurisdiction. It later denied the plaintiffs' motion for relief under Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Eleventh Circuit found no error in either of the district court's orders.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    12 views2 pages

    East Okeechobee Palms, LLC v. Richard Kellam, 11th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants and denial of the plaintiffs' motion for post-judgment relief. The district court had dismissed the amended complaint filed by East Okeechobee Palms, LLC and Lakeside Palm Beach East MHP, LLC against Richard Kellam, ARCAP LC, Lakeside Agency, and Company Manager LC for lack of personal jurisdiction. It later denied the plaintiffs' motion for relief under Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Eleventh Circuit found no error in either of the district court's orders.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    Case: 15-14385

    Date Filed: 02/08/2016

    Page: 1 of 2

    [DO NOT PUBLISH]

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 15-14385
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cv-80866-DMM

    EAST OKEECHOBEE PALMS, LLC,


    a Florida limited liability company,
    LAKESIDE PALM BEACH EAST MHP, LLC,
    a New York limited liability company,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    RICHARD KELLAM,
    an individual,
    ARCAP LC,
    a Virginia limited liability,
    LAKESIDE AGENCY,
    a Virginia D/B/A,
    COMPANY MANAGER LC,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Case: 15-14385

    Date Filed: 02/08/2016

    Page: 2 of 2

    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (February 6, 2016)
    Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    The District Court on February 23, 2015, entered an order dismissing
    appellants amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Doc. 47. On
    August 28, 2015, the court denied appellants motion for relief filed pursuant to
    Rules 59(a)(2) and (e) and Rules 60(b)(3) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
    Procedure. Doc. 57. Appellants appeal both orders. Doc. 58.
    We find no error in the District Courts order dismissing that amended
    complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction or its order denying relief under Rules
    59 and 60.
    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like