Lisa Rembert v. Dunmar Estates, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11526
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
LISA REMBERT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DUNMAR ESTATES,
DUNMAR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
FERDINANDSEN ENTERPRISES, INC,
d.b.a. World of Homes,
EMPIRE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.,
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 22-11526 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 12/29/2022 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11526
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cv-00544-CEM-LHP
____________________
Before W ILSON, G RANT, and L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lisa Rembert’s case was dismissed without prejudice—and
before defendants had been served—because her attorney
knowingly violated local rules. Two days after Rembert filed her
complaint, a district judge ordered her counsel to comply with
Local Rule 3.03 and file a disclosure statement within fourteen
days. Accompanying the order was a docket entry signed by the
district judge titled “NOTICE TO COUNSEL AND PARTIES”
stating that the failure “to comply with ANY Local Rules or Court
Orders may result in” sanctions including “dismissal of this action
or entry of default without further notice.”
After twenty days of inaction from Rembert, the court sua
sponte dismissed the case without prejudice. She appealed. Her
counsel committed various procedural errors during the appeal,
which at one point led us to dismiss for failure to file a disclosure
statement. Rembert has since filed a separate district court action
against the same defendants, which is proceeding.
USCA11 Case: 22-11526 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 12/29/2022 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

22-11526 Opinion of the Court 3
In general, involuntary dismissals of complaints without
prejudice are final, appealable orders.
Justice v. United States, 6
F.3d 1474, 1481 (11th Cir. 1993);
but see Grayson v. K Mart Corp.,
79 F.3d 1086, 1094–95 & n.7 (11th Cir. 1996). Even if we agree that
this was indeed a final appealable order, that the appeal is not moot,
and that Rembert’s appeal was procedurally proper, the district
court’s dismissal was appropriate.
Rembert raises several constitutional arguments, but
concedes that we “need not address any constitutional questions to
do complete justice in this case.” The last sentence of the brief,
without citing any authority, requests the refund of filing fees and
costs, as well as attorney’s fees. These arguments are abandoned.
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681–82 (11th
Cir. 2014).
One question remains: do courts have the power to dismiss
cases sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)? Yes. That power
“cannot seriously be doubted” when the dismissal is for failure to
comply with “any order of court,” even if it is “with prejudice.”
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962).
We review Rule 41(b) sua sponte dismissals for abuse of
discretion.
Martin-Trigona v. Morris, 627 F.2d 680, 682 (5th Cir.
1980).1 It was not an abuse of discretion to dismiss, even
with
prejudice, due to plaintiff’s “personal inattention to this case.”
Id.;
1
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (Fifth
Circuit decisions published before October 1981 are binding precedent).
USCA11 Case: 22-11526 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 12/29/2022 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-11526
see also Jefferson Fourteenth Assocs. v. Wometco de Puerto Rico,
Inc., 695 F.2d 524, 526 (11th Cir. 1983) (we have “also upheld
sua
sponte dismissals” for “failure to comply with court orders”). The
one case plaintiff cites,
Woodham v. Am. Cystoscope Co. of
Pelham, New York, 335 F.2d 551 (5th Cir. 1964), is inapplicable.
Rembert’s brief concedes that her counsel knew of Local Rule 3.03
and does not allege any lack of knowledge about the docket entry
explaining the consequences of violating it.
We AFFIRM the district court’s order dismissing Rembert’s
complaint without prejudice.
USCA11 Case: 22-11526 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 12/29/2022 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --