On September 24, 2018, Case 18-13819 Martha A Chapman, PA the attorney for Stacy Tebo, Appellant filed an “Appellant’s certificate of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement (CIP)
Pursuant to 11th Cir. Rule 26.1-1, Appellant (Stacy Tebo) hereby certifies the following lists of individuals and entities as those known to have an interest in the outcome of this case.
Bell & Roper P.A. – Counsel for Appellees (City of DeBary, Florida and Leo Daniel Parrott)
Bowling, Michael Harrison – Council for Appellees
Chapman, Martha A – Counsel for Appellant
City of DeBary – Appellee
Martha A. Chapman, P.A. – Counsel for Appellant
Parrott, Leo Daniel – Appellee
Tebo, Stacy – Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 24th day of September, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. I further certify that a copy of the foregoing and Notice of Electronic Filing will be furnished via email by CM/ECF system to the counsel for the Appellees, Michael Harison Bowling, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Respectfully Submitted, Martha A. Chapman, Florida Bar No. 0004464
On September 26, 2018, Attorney Martha Chapman filed the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit CIVIL APPEALS STATEMENT form:
The boxes which were checked on the Civil Appeal Statement were:
Federal Question (as the Jurisdiction)
Final Judgment 28 USC 1291 (Nature of Judgment)
Type of Order: (Summary Judgment)
(1) Does the appeal involve a question of first impression: NO
(2) Will the determination of this appeal turn on the interpretation or applicatio n of particular cause or status? NO
(3) Is there any case now pending or about to be brought before the court or any other court or administrative agency that
(a) Arises from substantially the same case or controversy as this appeal? NO
(b) Involve an issue that is substantially the same, similar or related to an issue on this appeal? NO
(4) Will this appeal involve a conflict of law within the Eleventh Circuit? NO
(5) Issues proposed to be raised on appeal, including jurisdictional challenges
Whether the District Court erred in concluding, for purpose of summary judgment, that Tebo failed to provide sufficient evidence of pretext on her sex discrimination disparate claim?
Whether the District Court erred in concluding, for purposes of summary judgment, that Tebo failed to provide sufficient evidence of pretext on her retaliation claims?
Whether the District Court improperly weighed conflicting evidence and failed to draw all inference in the light most favorable to Tebo on her claims?
Also on 09/26/2018 Martha Chapman signed an Appearance of Consel Form with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, certifying that she is an active member in good standing of the State bar or the bar of the highest court of the State (including the District of Columbia) named below (Florida State Bar No. 0004464) and that her license to practice law in the named state is not currently lapsed for any reason, including but not limited to retirement, placement in inactive status, failure to pay her membership fees or failure to complete continuing education requirements. She understood that she is required to notify the clerk of court within 14 days of any change in the status of her state bar membership.
BUT THEN THIS WAS THE RESPONSE FROM THE U.S.COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta Georgia wrote the following letter to Martha Ann Chapman, Martha A.Chapman,PA on September 26, 2018
Appeal Number: 18-13819AA
Case Style: Stacy Tebo v City of DeBary et al
District Court Docket No: 6:16 -cv-01599-GAP-DCI
“According to our records, you are a member of the Eleventh Circuit bar in inactive status for failure to renew your bar membership, and pay the renewal fee. Unless an attorney is appearing on behalf of the United States, a federal public defender, or appointed by this court for a particular proceeding, an attorney in inactive status may not practice before the court. See 11th Cir R 46-2. Please complete a bar membership renewal form available at www.ca I I .uscourts.gov. and submit it along with the required fee through the Court’s Electonic Ase Files (ECF) System, if you wish to maintain your bar membership with this court.
David J. Smith, Clerk of Court
To this Date Martha Chapman has not filed notice with the court that she has renewed her Florida State Bar License which requires certain hours of continued education. It is amazing that an attorney would forget to renew her license but believe she is licensed and sign an APPEARANCE OF COUNCIL FORM with the Eleventh Circuit of Appeals.
The way it Stands, Martha Chapman must immediately renew her membership and pay the renewal fees and no other attorney has been mentioned…if there is no response, it looks as if Ms. Tebo’s Appeal is over for lack of Attorney active Status and the lower Court’s decision will remain.
The Original Letter to Martha Ann Chapman of September 12, 2018 from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit advised the case had been docketed with the court, 6L16-cv-01599-GAP-DCI.
The Eleventh Circuit Rule 31-1 requires that APPELLANT’S BRIEF BE SERVED AND FILED ON OR BEFORE October 22, 2018. APPELLANT’S APPENDIX MUST BE SERVED AND FILED NO LATER THAN 7 DAYS AFTER FILING OF THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF.
The court advised the September 12th letter was the only notice Ms. Chapman woud receive concerning the due date for filing briefs and appendices. Every motion, petition brief, answer, response and reply filed must contain a Certificate of Interested Persons (CIP) and Corporate Disclosure Statement. Appellants/Petitioners must file a CIP witin 14 days after the date the case or appeal is docketed in this court (Which was done). A CIP must be filed within 28 days after the case or appeal is docketed in the court, regardless of whether appelants / petitioners have filed a CIP.