Alexander Eugenio Moskovits v. Aldridge Pite, LLP, 677 F. App'x 510

Background

Plaintiff Alexander Moskovits (pro se, resident of Brazil) sued 23 defendants in S.D. Fla., alleging a statewide conspiracy to fraudulently foreclose mortgage(s) related to one Miami Beach property originally conveyed to Mel Gorham.
Allegations: HSBC Mortgage Corp. repeatedly sold mortgage interests into the secondary market, then filed foreclosures (Aug. 2010, Apr. 2014); MERS executed a 2012 assignment to HSBC Bank USA that Moskovits claims was fraudulent.
Moskovits alleged RICO (mail/wire fraud predicate acts), unjust enrichment (false billing/attorneys’ fees), and FDCPA violations (misleading collection communications), but pleaded few facts showing personal injury or precise timing.
The district court issued a sua sponte RICO-order requiring a RICO case statement by Feb 17, 2016; Moskovits did not comply and the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on Feb 18, 2016 for failure to prosecute/comply.
On appeal, Moskovits argued lack of timely notice (he did not receive mail and pro se litigants are not on e-notice) and asserted dismissal denied due process. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed because dismissal without prejudice caused no prejudice to his ability to refile viable claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sua sponte dismissal without prejudice was an abuse of discretion	Moskovits: court failed to give timely notice of the RICO-order (mail/e-notice issues) and thus should not have dismissed for failure to comply or prosecute	Court defendants: dismissal permitted under court’s authority for failure to comply with order; order warned of dismissal	Affirmed: dismissal without prejudice not an abuse of discretion because Moskovits suffered no prejudice in refiling viable claims
Whether plaintiff was denied minimal due process by not receiving prior notice/opportunity to comply	Moskovits: lack of actual notice meant he had no fair opportunity to comply, so dismissal was procedurally unfair	Defendants/court: RICO-order warned of dismissal; dismissal is permissible when dismissal without prejudice causes no prejudice	Court: pro se litigants must get notice, but dismissal can stand if reversal would be futile; here no prejudice shown
Timeliness of RICO and related claims (prejudice inquiry)	Moskovits: claims viable and dismissal short-circuited his ability to proceed	Defendants: statutes of limitations bar some claims; dismissal without prejudice did not harm ability to refile timely claims	Court: RICO claim likely time-barred as to 2010 conduct; later acts left opportunity to refile; no prejudice from two-week dismissal period
Viability of substantive claims (RICO, unjust enrichment, FDCPA)	Moskovits: facts support RICO, unjust enrichment, and FDCPA class claims	Defendants: complaint is factually and legally deficient; many claims time-barred	Court: complaint lacks facts to state viable claims; FDCPA already time-barred; unjust enrichment and RICO inadequately pleaded or untimely in part

Key Cases Cited

Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute)
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (courts may dismiss for failure to prosecute to manage dockets)
Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) (procedural fairness requires notice/opportunity before sua sponte dismissal)
Maiz v. Virani, 253 F.3d 641 (11th Cir. 2001) (accrual rule for civil RICO claims—limitations runs when injury was or should have been discovered)
Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000) (RICO accrual principles)
Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075 (11th Cir. 2001) (no reversal where complaint is patently deficient)
Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2005) (dismissal with prejudice is extreme sanction; lesser sanctions required absent pattern of delay)
Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1983) (dismissal without prejudice generally not an abuse of discretion)