Michael Gulisano v. Burlington, Inc., 34 F.4th 935

Plaintiff Cohen sued an entity named "Burlington, Inc." after an in-store injury; no such corporate entity existed.
The Florida district court entered default judgment against the named defendant, "Burlington, Inc.," for $677,774.75.
Plaintiff's attorney Gulisano sought and obtained a writ of execution that he used to locate assets by searching EINs; he used EINs for Burlington Stores, Inc. (BSI) and Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corp. (BCFDC) and caused a levy on BSI bank accounts.
BSI and Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. (BCFWC) moved to quash the writ and to vacate the levy, arguing they were distinct entities and had not been sued.
Gulisano filed a motion in Florida to amend the default judgment to substitute or list BSI and BCFWC (claiming "Burlington, Inc." was a fictitious name or a typographical error); the court denied the motion and imposed Rule 11 sanctions, finding the position factually and legally frivolous and taken in bad faith.
The district court also denied Gulisano’s Rule 59 motion for reconsideration; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sanctions order and deemed the reconsideration challenge abandoned.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gulisano)	Defendant's Argument (BSI/BCFWC)	Held
Whether Rule 11 sanctions were warranted for the motion to amend and related conduct	"Burlington, Inc." was a fictitious name/typographical error referring to BSI/BCFWC, so the judgment could be amended and enforced against them	"Burlington, Inc." did not exist and was not a registered fictitious name; distinct corporate entities cannot be bound by a judgment against a non-existent party	Sanctions affirmed: the motion and positions were objectively frivolous, counsel failed to reasonably investigate, and persisted in bad faith
Whether denial of the Rule 59 motion for reconsideration was an abuse of discretion	Reconsideration should be granted (argued repeatedly but without developed appellate argument)	District court correctly found no clear error or manifest injustice; motion merely rehashed prior arguments	Affirmed (issue deemed abandoned on appeal for lack of developed argument)

Johnson v. 27th Ave. Caraf, Inc., 9 F.4th 1300 (11th Cir. 2021) (defines standards for Rule 11 frivolousness and bad-faith advocacy)
Worldwide Primates, Inc. v. McGreal, 87 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 1996) (sanctions required when counsel fails to conduct a reasonable inquiry even if claiming good-faith belief)
Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1991) (attorney’s duty to make a reasonable factual and legal inquiry before filing)
Turner v. Sungard Business Sys., Inc., 91 F.3d 1418 (11th Cir. 1996) (Rule 11 liability can attach for continued advocacy after claims become untenable)
Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516 (11th Cir. 1998) (two-step Rule 11 inquiry: objective frivolousness and whether signer should have known)
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (issues not properly argued on appeal are deemed abandoned)