United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
JOHN L. MILANO, Plaintiff,
TD BANK USA, N.A., Defendant.
MORALES HOWARD, UNITED SLATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant, TD Bank USA,
N.A.'s Motion for Permanent Injunction for Order Barring
Relitigation (Doc. 28; Motion) filed on September 6, 2018.
Plaintiff, John L. Milano (“Milano”), filed
Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Order
Barring Relitigation (Doc. 29; Response) on September 10,
2018. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.
initiated this action in the County Court, for the Fourth
Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida on April
23, 2018, Milano v. TD Bank USA, N.A., No.
16-2018-SC-004398-XXXX-MA (Fla. Cnty. Ct., Duval Cnty.).
See Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (Doc. 2;
Complaint) at 1. In the Complaint, Milano seeks relief for TD
Bank's alleged denial of his rights when it
“Prematurely without merit, Charged off the
Plaintiff's credit card accounts under #'s ending in
8196, $2, 136.00 and #'s ending in 1328, $308.00, denied
of billing statements, failure to reactivate credit card
accounts.” Id. at 1, 7. As relief, he
“seeks the removal of charge off status with the major
credit reporting agencies. (Equifax, Transunion and
Experian), thus seeks a Declaratory Judgement, respectively
totaling $2, 444.00.” Id. After receiving a
copy of the Complaint from Milano, TD Bank removed the action
to this Court. See Notice of Removal (Doc. 1;
Notice). In response, Milano filed what he titled as a
“Motion to Dismiss” in which he sought to have
the Court remand the action to the Duval County Court where
he had initiated it. See Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4;
Remand Motion). However, on June 12, 2018, when Milano
appeared at a Preliminary Pretrial Conference as ordered by
the Court, see Clerk's Minutes (Doc. 22), he
joined TD Bank in moving for a voluntary dismissal of the
action with prejudice. See id.; Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 23). As a result, on July 5, 2018, the
Court entered an Order dismissing this case with prejudice.
See Order (Doc. 27; Dismissal Order).
Motion, filed two months after the Court dismissed this
action with prejudice, TD Bank seeks an order
(1) directing him to withdraw his recent motions in state
court in this action; (2) directing him to dismiss the new
action that he recently filed in state court; and (3)
prohibiting him from filing any new lawsuit, motion, or other
proceeding against TD or its privies in any forum other than
this Court unless he obtains this Court's leave or he is
represented by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.
See Motion at 1. In doing so, TD Bank notes that
Milano has filed three separate essentially identical actions
against it all of which have been dismissed.
first filed suit against TD Bank in state court on February
26, 2018, Milano v. TD Bank, No.
16-2018-SC-002068-XXXX-MA (Fla. Cnty. Ct., Duval Cnty.)
(“Milano I”). See Motion, Ex.
The state court dismissed Milano I without prejudice
after Milano voluntarily moved to dismiss on March 19, 2018.
See id., Ex. C. He filed his second action, again in
state court on March 19, 2018, Milano v. TD Bank U.S.
Holding Co., No. 16-2018-SC-002817-XXXX-MA (Fla. Cnty.
Ct., Duval Cnty.), and TD Bank removed the action to this
Court on March 29, 2018, 3:18-cv-00416-MMH-JBT (M.D. Fla.)
(“Milano II”). See Milano II,
Doc. 2; Complaint at 4; Doc. 1; Notice of Removal. On June 15
2018, TD Bank filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with
Prejudice, stating that both parties had agreed to dismiss
Milano II with prejudice. See id., Doc. 37;
Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice. As such, the Court
dismissed Milano II with prejudice on June 18, 2018.
See id., Doc. 38; Order of Dismissal. Milano later
initiated the instant action, which the Court will refer to
as Milano III.
three of these actions Milano complained about the same
conduct. “Defendant TD Bank USA N.A. . . . Charged off
the Plaintiff's credit card accounts.” See
Motion, Ex. A at 1; Milano II, Complaint at 1;
Milano III, Complaint at 1. And in all three, he
requested the same relief, “a Declaratory Judgement . .
. totaling $2, 444.00” and “the removal of charge
off status with the major credit reporting agencies.”
See id., Ex. A at 4; Milano II, Complaint
at 4; Milano III, Complaint at 7.
to TD Bank, Milano has also filed a fourth action against it
in state court, Milano v. Target Credit Cards / TD Bank
USA, N.A., No. 16-2018-SC-008601-XXXX-MA (Fla. Cnty.
Ct., Duval Cnty.) (“Milano IV”).
See Motion, Ex. P at 3. In that action, Milano
asserts a breach of contract claim based on private
correspondence between the two parties, a cause that is
arguably distinct from the first three actions. See
Response at 2; Motion, Ex. P. at 1-2. Shortly after that, on
September 6, 2018, TD Bank filed the instant Motion in this
Court. See generally Motion. A review of the state
court docket reflects that Milano voluntarily dismissed
Milano IV a week later on September 13, 2018.
review of the Motion and the record in this action, as well
as Milano's related actions, the Court declines to enter
the broad post-judgment relief sought by TD Bank in the
Motion. In doing so, and without deciding, the Court merely
observes that it does not appear that Milano's actions to
date are sufficiently egregious to warrant the extraordinary
remedy of limiting his right of access to courts. See
e.g. Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073 (11th
Cir. 1986) (en banc) (establishing the standard for curbing
abusive litigation that threatens the court's ability to
carry out its Article III functions). To the extent TD Bank
requests that the Court order Milano to withdraw any filings
made in the Milano III state court action after
removal to this Court and to dismiss Milano IV, such
requests are moot because Milano voluntarily dismissed
Milano III with prejudice on June 21, 2018, see
Milano III, State Court Docket Doc. 20, and Milano
IV with prejudice on September 13, 2018, see Milano
IV, State Court Docket Doc. 32. As such, the Motion is
due to be denied without prejudice to TD Bank pursuing an
injunction later in a separate action should Milano's
conduct warrant such relief.
light of the foregoing, it is hereby
Defendant, TD Bank USA, N.A.'s Motion for Permanent
Injunction for Order Barring Relitigation (Doc. 28) is
DENIED, without prejudice.