Joshua S. Friebel, et al. v. Robert E. Blackerby, et al., No. 12-16573 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-16573 Date Filed: 05/28/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-16573 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C.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
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.
