USCA11 Case: 22-12108 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2023 Page: 1 of 11
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12108
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
ANGELICA IVANA MULDROW,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EZ E-FILE TAX PREPARERS, INC.,
AJEENAH CRITTENDON,
Defendants-Appellants.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00554-TCB
USCA11 Case: 22-12108 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2023 Page: 2 of 11
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12108
____________________
Before Wilson, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
EZ E-File Tax Preparers, Inc. (“EZ E-File”), and Ajeenah
Crittendon (collectively, “Defendants”) appeal from the district
court’s order granting Appellee Angelica Muldrow’s motion for a
preliminary injunction and judgment against Crittendon in the
amount of $5,000. Defendants also appeal from the district court’s
order denying Crittendon’s motion to set aside the judgment
against her. On appeal, Defendants argue that the district court
lacked personal jurisdiction over them, that Muldrow failed to sat-
isfy the elements necessary to grant injunctive relief, and that the
district court erred in awarding relief that was not pled. For the
following reasons, we affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Angelica Muldrow resides in DeKalb County, Georgia.
Ajeenah Crittendon resides in Alameda County, California, and is
Muldrow’s aunt. Crittendon owns and operates EZ E-File, a tax
business incorporated in California. Since 2021, Muldrow and Crit-
tendon have been involved in a dispute over the guardianship of
Muldrow’s mother. Muldrow and Crittendon’s relationship dete-
riorated throughout 2021 and 2022, with each sending combative
texts, emails, and social media posts on a regular basis.
USCA11 Case: 22-12108 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2023 Page: 3 of 11
22-12108 Opinion of the Court 3
On August 28, 2021, Crittendon sent Muldrow an email de-
manding the return of jewelry:
As I stated you have until Sept. 28th to return. If I
don’t receive them back . . . it simply means you re-
ceived something of value that you refused to return.
You will be assessed the appraisal value of each piece
x 3. It [sic] called damages/fraud, so play your games
with someone else. When IRS come knocking at the
door for the taxes including Georgia Dept of Revenue
let’s see how far you get with playing your games! . . .
If you want to continue sending your emails I will bill
you at my billable rate and forward to you my In-
voice. Pay it or not pay it. If you elect to not pay it
you will also receive a 1099-Misc. for my labor!
On September 15, 2021, Muldrow wrote an email to Crittendon
stating, “I would like to speak to my mom today I haven’t spoken
to her in over two weeks. She needs to call me.” Crittendon re-
sponded to her email, stating, “You need to return my diamond
rings no later than Sept. 28th as previously requested.” Muldrow
also sent Crittendon numerous emails that were intended to be
read or shown to Muldrow’s mother, including family vacation
photos, to which Crittendon responded, “YOU SHOULD KNOW
THAT YOUR MOTHER HAS NOT RECEIVE[D] NOT 1 OF
YOUR EMAILS. CEASE AND DESIST!”
In January 2022, Defendants issued an IRS Form 1099-MISC
to Muldrow, which alleged “other income” paid to Muldrow in the
amount of $320,660.00. Defendants claimed that this amount
USCA11 Case: 22-12108 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2023 Page: 4 of 11
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12108
represents the damage that Muldrow’s “fraudulent, harassing, de-
faming actions caused” them, not actual income. The “Other In-
come” section of a Form 1099-MISC states that “[t]he amount
shown may be payments received as the beneficiary of a deceased
employee, prizes, awards, taxable damages, Indian gaming profits,
or other taxable income.” And, at some time between January and
March of 2022, Defendants issued another IRS Form 1099-MISC to
Muldrow, which alleged “other income” paid to Muldrow in the
amount of $29,470.00.
On February 9, 2022, Muldrow filed a complaint in federal
court and a motion for preliminary injunction. Muldrow’s com-
plaint brought counts for fraud, preliminary interlocutory injunc-
tion, attorneys’ fees, and a request for an award of damages, inci-
dental and consequential damages, punitive damages, and any
other relief the court deems just and reasonable. In her motion for
preliminary injunction, Muldrow argued that the fraudulent 1099-
MISC forms would create a baseless tax liability of at least
$120,000.00 and would likely result in difficulties for both the IRS
and the Georgia Department of Revenue. On March 9, 2022, De-
fendants, proceeding pro se, filed an answer to Muldrow’s com-
plaint. In that answer, Defendants stated the following:
IMPROPER VENUE: Per Fed. R. Civ. P.82 the Court
does not have personal jurisdiction over the defend-
ant because Title 28, U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides: “A
civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely
on diversity citizenship may be brought only in the
judicial district where all defendants reside, except as
USCA11 Case: 22-12108 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2023 Page: 5 of 11
22-12108 Opinion of the Court 5
otherwise provided by law. See
28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(c)(1).
(Emphasis in original). On March 22, 2022, Muldrow filed an
amended complaint, which added the second Form 1099-MISC and
incorporated the same counts as the original complaint.
The same day, the district court held a hearing on the mo-
tion for preliminary injunction. Crittendon did not appear at the
hearing. The district court indicated that the evidence was suffi-
cient to support a preliminary injunction and that it was inclined to
enter judgment against Crittendon in the amount of $5,000 pursu-
ant to
26 U.S.C. § 7434(b), which provides for civil damages for
fraudulent filing of information returns. When asked if he was fa-
miliar with that statute, Muldrow’s lawyer responded, “No, Judge,
I am not, offhand.”
The district court then issued an order and judgment. Fol-
lowing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the district court con-
sidered four factors in deciding to issue a preliminary injunction.
First, the district court found that Muldrow had a substantial likeli-
hood of succeed in proving that Defendants issued two fraudulent
1099-MISC Forms because Defendants admitted issuing such a
form and the reasons given for their issuance were not a legitimate
basis to do so. Second, the district court found that Muldrow
would be irreparably harmed if corrected Forms 1099-MISC are not
issued because of the economic hardship, fraudulent tax filings, and
the significant administrative hardship required of her to deal with
the governing tax authorities. Third, the court found that the
USCA11 Case: 22-12108 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2023 Page: 6 of 11
6 Opinion of the Court 22-12108
injury outweighed the harm that the relief would cause Defendants
because the harm to Defendants would simply be to not file fraud-
ulent tax filings. And finally, the district court found that entering
injunctive relief was not adverse to the public interest because re-
quiring parties to file factually accurate fax documents does not
harm the public. The court also entered judgment against Critten-
don, pursuant to § 7434(b), in the amount of $5,000.00. Because
the court determined that the corporate defendant, EZ E-File, was
not properly before the court, it only issued judgment against Crit-
tendon and closed the case.
On April 13, 2022, Crittendon, now represented by counsel,
filed a motion to set aside the judgment. Crittendon argued that
the district court lacked jurisdiction over her because she is a citizen
of California who does not own property in Georgia and does not
solicit clients in Georgia. Crittendon also argued that the district
court made a mistake of law in determining that the 1099-MISC
Forms were issued incorrectly because they are for reporting taxa-
ble damages and the amount represented reportable damages
caused by Muldrow to Crittendon and her business. Muldrow
responsed to this motion, arguing that the district court had per-
sonal jurisdiction over Crittendon because the general require-
ments for personal jurisdiction were satisfied, Georgia’s long-arm
statute was satisfied, and jurisdiction would not be inappropriate
under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On May 12, 2022, the district court denied Crittendon’s mo-
tion to set aside the judgment. As to Crittendon’s arguments on
USCA11 Case: 22-12108 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2023 Page: 7 of 11
22-12108 Opinion of the Court 7
personal jurisdiction, the district court stated that her motion “re-
flect[ed] a misunderstanding of the law on personal jurisdiction.”
The district court ruled that Crittendon did not raise personal ju-
risdiction defects in responsive pleadings or motions and had there-
fore waived that affirmative defense.1 According to the district
court, “[n]owhever in the answer, however, did she raise the de-
fense of lack of personal jurisdiction.” As to Crittendon’s argu-
ments on the mistake of law relating to the IRS forms, the district
court disagreed, noting that Crittendon had the opportunity to be
heard at the March 22 hearing but refused to attend. The court
explained that Crittendon could not complain of a mistake of law
a month after the hearing at which she voluntarily did not appear.
Defendants timely appealed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the district court’s denial of a motion to vacate
for abuse of discretion. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Crum & Forster
Specialty Ins. Co.,
828 F.3d 1331, 1333 (11th Cir. 2016). “A district
court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard,
applies the law in an unreasonable or incorrect manner, follows
improper procedures in making a determination, or makes findings
1 The district court viewed Crittendon’s mention of personal jurisdiction in her
answer not as an affirmative defense based on personal jurisdiction, but as an
argument relating to improper venue. Because a substantial part of the alleged
events occurred within the venue district, the court found that venue was
proper.
USCA11 Case: 22-12108 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2023 Page: 8 of 11
8 Opinion of the Court 22-12108
of fact that are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Toll,
804 F.3d
1344, 1353–54 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Citizens for Police Ac-
countability Political Comm. v. Browning,
572 F.3d 1213, 1216–17
(11th Cir. 2009)).
“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally con-
strued.” Tannenbaum v. United States,
148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th
Cir. 1998). We generally do not consider arguments raised for the
first time on appeal because the district court never had a chance
to examine them. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co.,
385 F.3d
1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004); accord Tannenbaum,
148 F.3d at 1263
(explaining that issues not raised below, even by a pro se party, are
normally deemed waived).
III. ANALYSIS
On appeal, Defendants argue that the district court erred in
concluding that Defendants failed to raise the defense of lack of
personal jurisdiction and that the district court’s order denying
Crittendon’s motion to vacate should be reversed. 2 In response,
2 Defendants also make two new arguments on appeal. First, Defendants ar-
gue that the district court improperly entered an injunction because Muldrow
did not suffer harm beyond economic loss and the cases cited by the district
court for the proposition that fraudulent tax forms cause the harm of admin-
istrative burdens were cases in which the government was suffering that harm,
not an individual. While we normally review the district court’s grant of in-
junctive relief for abuse of discretion, SunAmerica Corp. v. Sun Life Assurance
Co. of Canada,
77 F.3d 1325, 1333 (11th Cir. 1996), Defendants did not raise
USCA11 Case: 22-12108 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2023 Page: 9 of 11
22-12108 Opinion of the Court 9
Muldrow argues that Defendants waived the defense by not raising
it in their responsive pleadings.
“It is well-settled that lack of personal jurisdiction is a wai-
vable defect, and that a defendant waives any objection to the dis-
trict court’s jurisdiction over his person by not objecting to it in a
responsive pleading of a [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12 mo-
tion.” Palmer v. Braun,
376 F.3d 1254, 1259 (11th Cir. 2004); see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), (h) (stating that a party who fails to object to
personal jurisdiction in the first of either his answer or Rule 12 mo-
tion waives the objection). Though venue and personal jurisdic-
tion analyses involve some of the same factors, a motion challeng-
ing venue is not effective to preserve the issue of personal jurisdic-
tion. See Palmer,
376 F.3d at 1259.
Here, the district court ruled that Defendants failed to raise
a challenge to personal jurisdiction and thus waived any objection
to the court’s jurisdiction. In Defendants’ answer, they stated the
following:
this argument to the district court. Because this argument is raised for the first
time on appeal, we decline to address it. See Access Now,
385 F.3d at 1331.
Second, Defendants argue that the district court erred in rewarding a $5,000
judgment against Crittendon because it was based on a statute,
26 U.S.C.
§ 7434(b), that was not referenced in the complaint nor the amended com-
plaint. Defendants similarly did not raise this argument to the district court,
and we decline to address it for the first time on appeal. See Access Now,
385
F.3d at 1331.
USCA11 Case: 22-12108 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2023 Page: 10 of 11
10 Opinion of the Court 22-12108
IMPROPER VENUE: Per Fed. R. Civ. P.82 the Court
does not have personal jurisdiction over the defend-
ant because Title 28, U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides: “A
civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely
on diversity citizenship may be brought only in the
judicial district where all defendants reside, except as
otherwise provided by law. See
28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(c)(1).
Although Defendants stated in their answer that “the Court
does not have personal jurisdiction,” this statement is confused by
the title, “Improper Venue,” and the citation to
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b),
a statute governing venue. Indeed, the only reasons given to sup-
port Defendants’ contention that the district court lacked personal
jurisdiction are the plain language of the venue statute and a refer-
ence to
28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), a statute governing diversity juris-
diction. Nowhere in their answer or subsequent filings before the
district court entered judgment did Defendants make any argu-
ments or assertions relevant to a defense for lack of personal juris-
diction. Instead, the district court interpreted the language as a de-
fense of improper venue. We agree. Given their reasoning and
citations, it appears that, even construing their answer liberally,
Defendants were actually raising an improper venue argument and
misstated the conclusion. See United States v. Cordero,
7 F.4th
1058, 1068 n.11 (11th Cir. 2021) (explaining that, while pro se plead-
ings are construed liberally, “a court may not ‘serve as de facto
counsel for a party’ or rewrite a pleading” (quoting GJR Invs., Inc.
v. County of Escambia,
132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998))).
USCA11 Case: 22-12108 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/16/2023 Page: 11 of 11
22-12108 Opinion of the Court 11
Because the answer did not sufficiently raise a defense based on
lack of personal jurisdiction, we conclude that Defendants waived
any objection to jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion to vacate.
IV. CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, we affirm the district court’s orders
granting preliminary injunction and judgment and denying the
motion to vacate.
AFFIRMED.
