Case 2:15-cv-00358-SPC-CM Document 296 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID 9907
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`FORT MYERS DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`DANIEL A. BERNATH,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MARK CAMERON SEAVEY,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No: 2:15-cv-358-FtM-38CM
`
`/
`
`OPINION AND ORDER1
`
`This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Carol
`
`Mirando’s Report and Recommendation, which addresses Defendant American Legion’s
`
`Memorandum on Requested Relief (Doc. 232); Defendant Mark Seavey’s Memorandum
`
`on Damages (Doc. 233); and pro se Plaintiff Daniel Bernath’s Motion to File Complaint in
`
`state court (Doc. 260).2 (Doc. 270). Judge Mirando’s recommendations are twofold: (1)
`
`award Defendants injunctive and monetary damages because of Bernath’s copyright
`
`infringement, defamatory statements, and other actions; and (2) deny Bernath’s motion
`
`to file new complaints against Defendants. (Doc. 270 at 19-21). Bernath has submitted
`
`
`1 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or
`websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are
`cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By
`allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve,
`or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites.
`Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
`The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink.
`Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does
`not affect the opinion of the Court.
`
` 2
`
` Although Bernath is currently incarcerated at Hampton Road Regional Jail in Virginia
`(Doc. 283), he has made several objections to the Report and Recommendation.
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00358-SPC-CM Document 296 Filed 12/11/17 Page 2 of 10 PageID 9908
`
`over a dozen filings that the Court construes as objections to the Report and
`
`Recommendation.3 (Doc. 273; Doc. 275; Doc. 277; Doc. 278; Doc. 280; Doc. 281; Doc.
`
`282; Doc. 285; Doc. 287; Doc. 288; Doc. 289; Doc. 290; Doc. 291; Doc. 292; Doc. 293;
`
`Doc. 294). Defendants object only to Judge Mirando’s recommendation to deny as moot
`
`their request for a nationwide pre-suit injunction against Bernath.4 (Doc. 284). The
`
`Report and Recommendation is ripe for review.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`The full factual background is set forth in the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
`
`260) and the Order granting summary judgment for Defendants (Doc. 227). Briefly, this
`
`matter involves claims and counterclaims for copyright infringement, intentional infliction
`
`of emotional distress, cybersquatting, and defamation. The Court granted Legion’s and
`
`Seavey’s motions for summary judgment on all claims and counterclaims and directed
`
`the parties to provide supplemental briefing on their requested damages. (Doc. 227).
`
`
`
`Independent of summary judgment, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to
`
`declare Bernath a vexatious litigant because of his excessive filings and repeated failures
`
`to comply with this Court’s orders and procedural rules. (Doc. 259). In that vein, it
`
`imposed “a pre-filing injunction requiring Bernath to (a) obtain leave of court before filing
`
`any new actions in this Court or any court in Florida; and (b) attach to future complaints
`
`
`3 The Court need not restate the titles of Bernath’s filings because the titles do not
`necessarily align with the relief sought.
`
` 4
`
` Defendants’ objection is alternative relief to Judge Mirando reconsidering her
`recommendation on a nationwide pre-suit injunction. (Doc. 284). To secure a swift
`decision and to conserve judicial resources, the Court will handle the alternative relief and
`address the matter as an objection to the Report and Recommendation.
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00358-SPC-CM Document 296 Filed 12/11/17 Page 3 of 10 PageID 9909
`
`a list of all cases previously filed involving the same, similar, or related cause of action.”
`
`(Doc. 259). Since then, Bernath has requested to file new complaints against Legion and
`
`others in state court. (Doc. 260).
`
`The Report and Recommendation addresses both Bernath’s motion to file new
`
`complaints and Defendants’ supplemental briefing on damages.5 It specifically
`
`recommends:
`
`
`
`
`
`issue a permanent injunction prohibiting Bernath from using, displaying, or
`publishing Legion’s emblem in any form or medium;
`
`issue a permanent injunction enjoining Bernath from registering or maintaining
`any domain name bearing “amercianlegion” or the names of Legion’s
`employees or affiliates;
`
` order Bernath to transfer all of his domain names bearing Legion or affiliated
`names to Legion;
`
`issue a permanent injunction prohibiting Bernath from writing, publishing, or
`disseminating any defamatory material or defamatory information about Legion
`or any of its employees or affiliates in any medium;
`
` award Legion general damages of $100,000.00, special damages of
`$80,000.00, and punitive damages of $100,000.00;
`
` award Legion attorneys’ fees and costs for $384,820.00;
`
` award Seavey general damages of $500,000.00 and special damages of
`$135,000.00;
`
` award Seavey attorneys’ fees and costs for $195,620.00;
`
`issue a permanent injunction prohibiting Bernath from writing, publishing,
`displaying, or disseminating any material, writing or other information about
`Seavey in any medium;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 The Report and Recommendation states, “Bernath has not responded to The Legion’s
`and Seavey’s memoranda on damages, creating an assumption their requested relief is
`not opposed.” (Doc. 270 at 1-2). Although Bernath filed a document titled, “Opposition
`to Summary Judgment Motion for damages by Mark Seavey Addition to Pin-Point rebuttal
`to Seavey affidavit,” (Doc. 245), a de novo review of that filing shows that it was non-
`responsive to the damages issue.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00358-SPC-CM Document 296 Filed 12/11/17 Page 4 of 10 PageID 9910
`
`
` deny Bernath’s Motion to File Complaint (Doc. 260); and
`
`issue an order to show cause why Bernath should not be held in civil contempt
`for violating the Court’s pre-filing injunction order (Doc. 259).
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`
`
`A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or
`
`recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district
`
`judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
`
`proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. And “[t]he judge
`
`may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
`
`instructions.” Id.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`The Report and Recommendation addresses Defendants’ supplemental briefing
`
`on damages and Bernath’s motion to file new complaints. The Court will address each in
`
`turn.
`
`A. Damages: Permanent injunctions, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other monetary
`awards
`
`
`Because of Bernath’s pro se status, the Court has liberally considered all of his
`
`post-Report and Recommendation filings. This was no small feat because Bernath’s
`
`disjointed filings offer little information about the damages recommended. For instance,
`
`Bernath continues to deny committing copyright infringement and making defamatory
`
`statements about Defendants. He also claims to be an investigative journalist and
`
`somehow immune from his actions. Bernath reiterates that Defendants are trying to
`
`murder him, tormenting his family, and invading his home. And he accuses the
`
`undersigned and Judge Mirando of bias and seeks recusal. Even the most favorable
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00358-SPC-CM Document 296 Filed 12/11/17 Page 5 of 10 PageID 9911
`
`reading of his filings does not make them valid objections. With one exception, the Court
`
`adopts the Report and Recommendation on the permanent injunctions, attorneys’ fees
`
`and costs awards, and monetary damages.
`
`Judge Mirando recommends denying as moot Defendants’ request for a
`
`nationwide pre-suit injunction against Bernath because the Court already granted such
`
`relief for cases in this Court and other Florida courts. Defendants object to this
`
`recommendation because it did not directly address their request for the all-forma,
`
`nationwide injunction. (Doc. 284 at 3-4). Although the Court understands Defendants’
`
`frustration with Bernath’s vexatious filings, it will not exercise its discretion to extend the
`
`current pre-suit injunction nationwide. See Martin-Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384, 1387
`
`(11th Cir. 1993) (stating courts have considerable discretion in fashioning such a pre-suit
`
`injunction). This Court faces heavy dockets and scarce resources.6 It cannot divert
`
`attention away from delivering justice to litigants in other pending cases to police
`
`Bernath’s access to courts across the country. However, Bernath remains a vexatious
`
`litigant and the Court stands by its decision to declare him as such.
`
`In short, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation on the permanent
`
`injunctions, attorneys’ fees and costs awards, and monetary damages, but it denies
`
`Defendants’ request for nationwide pre-suit injunctive relief against Bernath.
`
`C. Bernath’s Motion to File Complaints in State Court
`
`
`
`Next, Bernath moves the Court for leave to file new complaints against Legion and
`
`others in Florida state courts. (Doc. 260; Doc. 260-1). He has filed the motion in this
`
`
`6 The undersigned has been the only active district court judge in the Fort Myers division
`since June 2015 and will likely to be so for the near future. This means the undersigned’s
`demanding trial calendar is rivaled only by its motions and case management obligations.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00358-SPC-CM Document 296 Filed 12/11/17 Page 6 of 10 PageID 9912
`
`case likely because of the Court’s pre-suit injunction Order. (Doc. 259). Defendants
`
`oppose Bernath’s motion because he has not complied with the pre-suit injunction Order
`
`for either complaint. (Doc. 261). The Report and Recommendation agrees with
`
`Defendants and recommends that Bernath show cause why he should not be held in civil
`
`contempt for his non-compliance. (Doc. 270).
`
`After examining the file carefully and independently, the Court will not order
`
`Bernath to show cause. It will also deny without prejudice his motion because it is not
`
`applicable to this suit. In an abundance of caution, Bernath’s misfiling may not be his
`
`fault, as the Court did not provide him (and the Clerk’s Office) guidance on how to proceed
`
`with new complaints. For this reason, the Court will deny his request and modify its pre-
`
`suit injunction Order (Doc. 259). Also, the Court has reconsidered its pre-suit injunction
`
`Order and, for the same reasons that it will not extend the Order nationwide, the Court
`
`will limit the pre-suit injunction to the Middle District of Florida only. If the modified pre-
`
`suit injunction fails in curbing Bernanth’s abusive behavior, then the Court may consider
`
`further remedial measures.
`
`Accordingly, it is now
`
`ORDERED:
`
`(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 270) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED
`
`in part.
`
`a. Defendant American Legion’s Memorandum on Requested Relief (Doc.
`
`232) and Defendant Mark Seavey’s Memorandum on Damages (Doc.
`
`233) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court thus
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00358-SPC-CM Document 296 Filed 12/11/17 Page 7 of 10 PageID 9913
`
`i. issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Plaintiff Daniel Bernath
`
`from using, displaying, or publishing Legion’s emblem in any form
`
`or medium;
`
`ii. issues a permanent injunction enjoining Bernath from registering
`
`or maintaining any domain name bearing “amercianlegion” or the
`
`names of Legion’s employees or affiliates;
`
`iii. orders Bernath to transfer all of his domain names bearing Legion
`
`or affiliated names to Legion;
`
`iv. issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Bernath from writing,
`
`publishing, or disseminating any defamatory material or
`
`defamatory information about Legion or any of its employees or
`
`affiliates in any medium;
`
`v. issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Bernath from writing,
`
`publishing, displaying, or disseminating any defamatory material,
`
`writing or other information about Seavey in any medium;
`
`vi. awards Legion general damages of $100,000.00, special
`
`damages of $80,000.00, and punitive damages of $100,000.00;
`
`vii. awards Legion attorneys’ fees and costs for $384,820.00;
`
`viii. awards Seavey general damages of $500,000.00 and special
`
`damages of $135,000.00; and
`
`ix. awards Seavey attorneys’ fees and costs for $195,620.00.
`
`b. Bernath’s Motion to File Complaint (Doc. 260) is DENIED without
`
`prejudice.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00358-SPC-CM Document 296 Filed 12/11/17 Page 8 of 10 PageID 9914
`
`(2) Paragraph three in the order clause of the pre-suit injunction Order (Doc. 259)
`
`is MODIFIED and the following subsections REPLACE that paragraph:
`
`a. The Clerk of Court shall open a miscellaneous case titled, “In re: Daniel
`
`A. Bernath.
`
`b. Bernath may not file, as a pro se litigant,7 any new lawsuit, action,
`
`proceeding, writ, or other matter against Mark Seavey and The
`
`American Legion in the United States District Court for the Middle District
`
`of Florida without first obtaining leave of court. In moving for leave,
`
`Bernath must adhere to these procedures:
`
`i. file a motion titled, “Motion Seeking Leave to File a Complaint”;
`
`ii. attach as “Exhibit 1” to the motion the proposed new complaint;
`
`iii. attach as “Exhibit 2” a copy of the Court’s Pre-Suit Injunction
`
`Order; and
`
`iv. attach as “Exhibit 3” a sworn affidavit from Bernath certifying that
`
`(1) the complaint raises a new issue that has never been
`
`previously raised by him in this or any other court; (2) the claim
`
`or issue is not frivolous, vexatious, or harassing; and (3) the
`
`document is not filed in bad faith.
`
`c. If Bernath does not follow the above procedures, the Clerk is DIRECTED
`
`to reject any new complaint and make an entry on the docket in the
`
`
`7 The pre-filing screening procedure will not apply if an attorney who is a member of good
`standing in the Middle District of Florida files a new complaint on Bernath’s behalf.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00358-SPC-CM Document 296 Filed 12/11/17 Page 9 of 10 PageID 9915
`
`miscellaneous case file to reflect that a new complaint was rejected and
`
`returned for failure to comply with the pre-filing screening procedures.
`
`d. If Bernath meets the pre-filing procedures, the Clerk is DIRECTED to
`
`forward his motion and attached exhibits to the senior Magistrate Judge
`
`in the applicable division for review. The Magistrate Judge must decide
`
`whether the complaint has arguable merit; that is, a material basis in law
`
`and fact. No abusive, frivolous, scandalous, or otherwise impertinent
`
`complaint will be permitted.
`
`i. If the action is arguably meritorious, the Magistrate Judge shall
`
`issue an order so stating and directing the Clerk to file the
`
`complaint for random assignment. The Magistrate Judge’s order
`
`shall be docketed with the complaint in the new civil case.
`
`ii. If, however,
`
`the Magistrate Judge’s preliminary
`
`review
`
`determines that the complaint has no arguable merit, the
`
`Magistrate Judge shall enter an order denying the motion, in
`
`which event the complaint will not be filed with the Court. Instead,
`
`the Clerk shall return the motion and exhibits to Bernath, after
`
`making a copy for the Court. The Magistrate Judge’s order and
`
`the copy of the motion and exhibits must be filed in the
`
`miscellaneous case.
`
`e. Bernath’s failure to comply with the terms of this Order shall be sufficient
`
`grounds to deny any motion for leave to file, and may be considered an
`
`act of contempt for which Bernath may be sanctioned accordingly.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00358-SPC-CM Document 296 Filed 12/11/17 Page 10 of 10 PageID 9916
`
`(3) The remedial measures imposed by this Order do not restrict, in any way, the
`
`other judges’ authority to impose sanctions, if appropriate, in the cases Bernath
`
`has already filed in this Court.
`
`(4) Defendants’ Limited Request for Reconsideration on the Issue of Pre-Suit
`
`Injunctive Relief; or, alternatively, Limited Objection to November 1, 2017
`
`Report and Recommendation (Doc. 284) is DENIED.
`
`(5) The Court OVERRULES and DENIES Bernath’s construed objections to the
`
`Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 273; Doc. 275; Doc. 277; Doc. 278; Doc.
`
`280; Doc. 281; Doc. 282; Doc. 285; Doc. 287; Doc. 288; Doc. 289; Doc. 290;
`
`Doc. 291; Doc. 292; Doc. 293; Doc. 294).
`
`(6) The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Bernath.
`
`(7) The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly, terminate all pending
`
`motions and deadlines, and close the file.
`
`DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 11th day of December 2017.
`
`
`Copies: All Parties of Record
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`