Stanley Stirzaker v. Timothy P. Howard, No. 06-10078 (11th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 06-10078 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT SEPT 18, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 00-01350-CV-J-20TJC STANLEY STIRZAKER , NORMA STIRZAKER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus TIMOTHY P. HOWARD, HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, Attorneys at Law, P.A., Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (September 18, 2006) Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Stanley and Norma Stirzaker appeal the district court s grant of summary judgment to defendants in the Stirzaker s suit for malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract against Timothy P. Howard and Howard and Associates, P.A. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. After careful consideration of the record and the parties briefs, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the reasons set forth in the district court s order. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.1 1 The motion to withdraw as counsel for Appellees, filed by Attorney Tod B. Eikner, is GRANTED. Pursuant to Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corporation, 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1058, 106 S.Ct. 799 (1986), a corporate entity must be represented by counsel on appeal. Therefore, to the extent that Appellee Howard & Associates, P.A., intends to pursue any further actions in this appeal, Appellee must obtain new counsel and counsel must enter an appearance. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
