GAFFNEY v. BAUMANN (2025)

This case is before the Court on the petition of Teresa Gaffney to invoke this Court's discretionary jurisdiction based on express and direct conflict. In our order dated May 14, 2025, we denied the petition for review, retained jurisdiction to pursue any possible sanctions, granted a motion for attorney's fees filed by Respondent Michael R. Kangas, Successive Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of John J. Gaffney, in the amount of $2,500.00, and directed Petitioner to show cause why she should not be barred from any future pro se filings in this Court related to Hillsborough County Circuit Court cases 292014CA003762A001HC and 292020CA002115A001HC.

This case represents our fifth denial of a request for review by Petitioner related to this matter. See Case Nos. SC2019-0893, SC2019-0899, SC2021-1212, SC2024-1474, and SC2024-1862. Petitioner's late husband represented her in the first three cases; she has represented herself in the last two cases.

We issued the order to show cause because Petitioner has abused the judicial process by filing frivolous filings in this Court related to this matter that are either meritless or not appropriate for this Court's review. Petitioner has filed a response to the order to show cause.

After considering Petitioner's response, we conclude that it fails to show cause why she should not be sanctioned. Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Teresa Gaffney pertaining to Hillsborough County Circuit Court cases 292014CA003762A001HC and 292020CA002115A001HC, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Counsel may file on Gaffney's behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith.¹

No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by this Court. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(d)(2).

All pending motions are hereby denied as moot.

It is so ordered.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In recent years, we have imposed comparable sanctions on other litigants whose pro se filing practices have exhibited their disregard for abusing the scarce judicial resources of this Court. See, e.g., Rivas v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 239 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2018); Fla. Bar v. Petrano, 153 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2014); Steele v. State, 14 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2009); Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2008); Sibley v. Fla. Jud. Qualifications Comm'n, 973 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2006).

PER CURIAM.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur.