Joshua S. Friebel v. Robert E. Blackerby

Case: 12-16573 Date Filed: 05/28/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-16573
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00120-RS-CJK
JOSHUA S. FRIEBEL,
Husband,
ELIZABETH F. FRIEBEL,
and Wife,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
PARADISE SHORES OF BAY COUNTY LLC,
a Florida Limited Liability Company,
Defendant-Cross Claimant-Cross Defendant,
ROBERT E. BLACKERBY,
an Individual,
MAGNUM CAPITAL LLC,
a Florida Limited Liability Company,
MH 1 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
a Florida Limited Liability Company,
Defendants-Cross Defendants-Cross Claimants-Appellees,
DURDEN ENTERPRISES II INC.,
Case: 12-16573 Date Filed: 05/28/2014 Page: 2 of 3
a Delaware Corporation, et al.,
Defendants-Cross Defendants,
MICHAEL EARL DURDEN,
as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Kedrick Earl Durden,
Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(May 28, 2014)
Before WILSON, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Friebel and Elizabeth Friebel appeal, pro se, the district court’s denial
of their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment
enforcing their settlement agreement with three defendants, in which the Friebels
were alleged to have agreed to pay the defendants $100,000. Based on the record,
the district court did not err by denying the 60(b) motion: the Friebels failed to
2
Case: 12-16573 Date Filed: 05/28/2014 Page: 3 of 3
show that their repeatedly omitting (in the face of court directions) to respond to
the defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement was due to mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. On appeal, they also have failed to
advance an argument that they have a meritorious defense to the motion that is
likely to prevail. No abuse of discretion has been shown. For background, see In
re Worldwide Web Systems, Inc., 328 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2003). Moreover, on
the recusal-sua-sponte issue, the district judge did not err: because the record
shows no evidence of pervasive bias. See Hamm v. Members of Bd. of Regents of
State of Fla., 708 F.2d 647, 651 (11th Cir. 1983).
AFFIRMED.
3