U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee For Credit Suisse First Boston CSFB 2005-11 v. Gregory B. Myers, Barabara Ann Kelly, Unknown, Spouse of Barbara Ann Kelly, Unknown Parties, Any and All Claiming By, Through, Under, and Against the Herein Named Individual Defendant(s) SunTrust Bank, Navy Federal Credit Union, Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, Tenant 1, the Names Being Fictitious to Account for Parties in Possession, Tenant 2 the Names Being Fictitious to Account for Parties in Possession, Tenant 3, the Names Being Fictitious to Account for

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: December 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01086
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASOCIATION, As Trustee For Credit Suisse First Boston CSFB 2005-11

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 2:24-cv-1086-JES-DNF

GREGORY B. MYERS, BARABARA ANN KELLY, UNKNOWN, Spouse of Barbara Ann Kelly, UNKNOWN PARTIES, Any and All Claiming By, Through, Under, and Against the Herein Named Individual Defendant(s) SUNTRUST BANK, NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, TENANT 1, the Names Being Fictitious to Account for Parties in Possession, TENANT 2 the Names Being Fictitious to Account for Parties in Possession, TENANT 3, the Names Being Fictitious to Account for Parties in Possession, and TENANT 4, the Names Being Fictitious to Account for Parties in Possession,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on review of Defendant Gregory B. Myers (“Defendant” or “Myers”) Motion to Proceed Pro Se and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. #67) filed on December 1, 2025. Plaintiff U.S. Bank, N.A. filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #68) on December 2, 2025. For the reasons set forth below,

Defendant’s Motion to Proceed Pro Se is granted and Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is denied. “Rule 59 applies to motions for reconsideration of matters encompassed in a decision on the merits of a dispute.” Wright v. Preferred Rsch., Inc., 891 F.2d886, 889 (11th Cir. 1990)(citations omitted). “The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” In re Kellogg¸197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)(citation and

internal quotation marks omitted) This case was remanded on August 12, 2025, to the Collier County Court for all further proceedings, except for the determination of attorney fees and costs. (Doc. #58.) On August, 13, 2025, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. #59). On August 28, 2025, the District Court granted entitlement to fees and directed counsel to file the supplemental motion with regard to the amount of their fees. (Doc. #61.) Plaintiff filed its Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (Doc. #65) on October 10, 2025. Defendant failed to respond within 21 days and so this Court entered an order granting

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees. (Doc. #66.) Defendant now comes to the Court arguing that the order granting attorney fees should be vacated to allow him to file a substantive response. (Doc. #67 p. 2.) Defendant notes that his counsel of record was hospitalized in October 2025 with a very serious medical condition and later passed away on October 28, 2025—all of which Defendant lacked any knowledge until November 2025. (Id.) Defendant, citing Diaz v. Jaguar Rest. Grp., LLC, 627 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th Cir. 2010), contends that he should be permitted to file a substantive response since the “Federal Rules are designed to ‘facilitate a proper ruling on the merit.’” (Id.) This Court is sympathetic to the passing of Mr. Michael Gort,

Esq., however, it will not vacate its order solely on this basis. Myers failed to assert any newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact that would permit this Court to alter or amend its previous judgment. As such, the Court will not vacate its previous order granting attorney fees in the amount of $6,350 (Doc. #66). For the reasons set forth in this order, the motion to alter or amend judgment will be denied. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED : (1) Defendant’s Motion to Proceed Pro Se (Doc. #67) is GRANTED ; (2) Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment (Doc. #67) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this Ath day of December 2025.

VAAA DH JQH E. STEELE 5 IOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies: Parties of record