Professional Documents
Culture Documents
17-11888
Case Docket No. 17-12134
Case Docket No. 17-12376
_________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN
APPELLANT
v.
________________________________________________________
APPELLANT
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
4409 West Varn Avenue
c Tampa, FL 33616
nausheenkhawaja@gmail.com
Pro Se
Appellant requested this court to rule on her time sensitive motion for
enlargement on March 2, 2018. The court did not rule on the motion, thus,
she filed the motion for injunction. Acknowledging the court’s busy
schedule, she filed a 30-day notice to rule on her motion on June 10, 2018.
Appellant has acted in good faith, awaiting patiently, yet pursuing sincere
1
Appellant stated in her Motion for Injunction that to maintain her medical
training learned at USF Medical School, and after receiving notice from ECFMG
that her transfer medical is a defunct (only medical school she was accepted to due
to defendant denial of Petition for Readmission, May 28, 2014; Counsel’s Demand
letter dated 5/12/15, and lack of cooperation with US DOE OCR during their
investigation from 2014 to 2015; and in support of her Motion for Injunction, for
reinstatement as an rising third year medical student standing; she has been (1)
preparing for USMLE Step 1, enrolled in Kaplan Medical USMLE Course for
Step 1; (2) perfecting her clinical documentation skills in an Medical Transcription
2
The motion sets forth reasons stating that Appellee is not entitled to relief
because:
Course (3) in an Emergency Medical Transcription Program (4) completing her
Healthcare Management Certificate Program at Davenport Univ. (5) medical
volunteer efforts at American Red Cross.
3
I. Lack of Jurisdiction
Francis, the federal Judge determined that the Florida case that he had
WL 4482168 at 13 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 19, 2007). The judge stated reasons to
The Department states in Federal Registrar Vol. 81, No. 211; that any
docket for more than 120 days; in which the claims raise a borrower defense,
the the “triggering event” to the Department allows it to carry out its
4
public’s interest, tax payer money and prevent further collateral damages in
well aware that her claims are subject ‘borrower defense’ as a copy of the
her account was provided to General Counsel for USF Health, Mrs. Roberta
2
Page numbers in Appellant’s opening brief “A”-.
5
Figure 1. Federal Registrar Vol. 81 No. 211. Published November 2016.
6
In Auto Parts Mfg. Miss. v. King Constr. Of Hous., LLC, the counsels
reached a settlement, but the district court dismissed the action without
prejudice. King and Noatex filed a joint settlement motion, asking the court
However, the panel dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because it
did not have jurisdiction to distribute the funds. The court held that pursuant
Appellant’s former counsel filed the suit at the state court, which was
removal of the case to the federal court; the court had jurisdiction and the
7
B. Florida Statute 44.102. Mediator had no jurisdiction over cases
local circuit rules 9. This Local Circuit Rule of Florida Middle District
8
Figure 2. Local Circuit Rules of Florida Southern Middle Court, Rule 16.2.
south.pdf
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Sta
tute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0044/Sections/0044.102.html
9
The Court ordered mediation also does not comply with the statement
the use of Mediation or Arbitration that involve federal funds from the
Direct Federal Loan program. Though the duties of a mediator and arbitrator
differ; since the student is allowed to preserve its ‘autonomy’ with regards to
its funds. Whereas, in arbitration, the arbitrator is acting outside its scope of
its authority regarding the rights of the federal funds. FR. Vol. 81 No. 211.
funds involving direct loan program. This also deviates from the Florida
10
Figure 4. Federal Registrar Vol. 81 No. 211. Published November 2016.
11
C. ‘Local Culture’
mediation, in which the rate is $375 per hour. This is not the rate that abides
However, it is the same rate set by the Mr. Christopher Shulman. This is of
concern, because Appellant’s former counsel stated to her, that he did not
have the authority to choose the mediator. The defendant delayed setting a
date, in which the former counsel had no choice but to set the mediation with
numerous USF cases. Whether the Judge automatically sets the price, as per
‘local culture’, because that is the price USF’s ‘regular mediator’ charges
created which can subject his duties to “easily shift” from mediation to an
(Fig. 5).
12
Figure 5. Mediation Order dated Nov. 9, 2016; from Florida Middle District
Judge, James S. Moody. See Appellant’s Appendix filed with her opening
13
Fig. 5a. Cost of Mediation date pursuant to Florida Statutes.
government to appropriate its actions with respect to meeting the direct loab
Rule 10.520 Compliance with Authority state that “a mediator shall comply
with all statutes, court rules, court rules, local court rules, and administrative
negotiate pursuant to its policy limits and up to the last demand stated by the
14
(b) Appearance at Mediation. Unless otherwise permitted by court
order or stipulated by the parties in writing, a party is deemed to
appear at a mediation conference if the following persons are
physically present:
requires physical presence of the parties in mediation:
15
E. ‘Good Faith’
include federal civil rights in which actions of state officials alleged to have
is no monetary limits for Federal Civil Rights Statutes and the general
present in the negotiation did not have authority to to conduct the mediation.
Her former counsel, stated the the representative sent by the Department
does not review the case, however, his standard is to award only up to
additional amount with respect to policy limit or demand would require prior
16
authorization, however, due to time constraints, it was not feasible prior to
this mediation date. Appellant did disclose her disapproval regarding the
conditions prior to the start of the mediation since the conditions necessary
stipulations he had written and discussed with her via email. However, she
he made her believe this is the “norm” at the time (Fig. 6 and 6a).
Figure 6. E-mail from her former counsel prior to Mediation date on March
17
Fig. 6a. Document prepared for Mediation prior to Mediation date.
18
II. Ongoing criminal conduct
19
A. Underlying issue and Dilatory conduct
permanent injunction that Appellant sought injunction for the first time since
filing her suit. This is incorrect, despite the fact her former counsel
misrepresented the court procedures, and withheld that injunctive relief can
Justice on 10/31/16, which was pending and reviewed for six months, since
mediation, with her medical education halted at her transfer medical school,
Disability Services for accommodations was pending and had completed the
20
Figure 8. NBME Disability Accommodations granted on April 3, 2017.
21
Defendant moves to strike her affidavit, for disclosing “confidential
motion, i.e. she had pursued injunctive relief for the first time since filing
her suit. When in fact, and as stated in Appellant’s motion for injunction,
during mediation the offer for solely injunctive relief was made, and her
NBME DS application and fees to take USMLE had been sent already (Fig.
8). She had paid $1500 through credit card for USMLE Step 1
foundation and excelling in the same CBSE exam in the past at USF. Her
attorney also requested $5000 attorney fees for himself so that he can pay for
the remaining fees related to the suit. She stated a stipulation that was
necessary for her to reinstate her financial aid so that she can continue her
medical education. She stated that including the injunctive relief and paying
for the remaining lawyer fees, she should be allowed to pursue her claims
for two academic years and accrued interest, so that she can use that to pay
22
for two remaining years left in her medical education. She stated her parents
live 15-minute away from USF MCOM and Affiliated Hospitals for third
year, thus, she can sacrifice living expenses and has the support of her
family to make the adjustment. However, pursuing her claims was necessary
to complete her medical education. The defendant denied the offer for
injunction. The final offer was from Florida Department Risk Management
was willing to $30,000. The defendant stated that they were only willing to
agree on “all-or-none” resolution; and that she will not be allowed to pursue
any future claims related to this suit, including refund of tuition from Federal
this was unconsciousable that they offered funds’ during mediation would
go straight to federal loans, but that won’t even pay for the interest accrued,
nor cover for the $200,000 students loans and etc. She confirmed this with
her counsel via text message the following day. He further confirmed that
the ‘Defendant’s norms’ would not “value a partial resolution” (Fig. 9).
23
Figure 9. Text message to former counsel, on March 23, 2017 in regards to
Mediation on 3/22/17.
demanded that the Court allow the jury to hear the testimony regarding
crucial evidence would deny Traveler’s of its due process right to present a
exception to the mediation confidentiality. “We must apply the plain terms
of the mediation confidentiality statutes to the facts of this case unless such
result would violate due process, or would absurd the results that clearly
24
In Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc. the Court stated that it has
inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the
of justice. 709 F. 2d. 585 (9th Cir. 1983). There is four step process in
issue prejudgment—and
Allege patterns:
25
DOE OCR, stated that the reason she was not
26
holding their negligence against her, which is presumed
27
years. This is also ‘corrected’ in the new USF MCOM
limitation expiration was that she first a complaint for the first time
Risk Management. This was clearly false, she notified Dr. Skalkos as
per University policy from Jan 2012 to May 2013, she filed a
28
complaint with the Vice Dean on July 2013, and received a decision
on October 25, 2013 (Fig. 10, 11, 12). As per stipulations stated in the
acts that are continual violations. Initial complaint filed 3/20/14, the
which aa copy of the OCR complaint pending was provided with her
29
Figure 10. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; A-
30
Figure 11. Letter from US DOE OCR to USF President, Dr. Genshaft
31
4. The Motion to Dismiss denied liability for its misrepresentation,
catalogs and rule book. In Ross v. Creighton Univ the court indicated
considered part of the contract between the school and its student. 957
F. 2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992) (basic legal relationship between student and
that “At a minimum, the state law contract and fraud claims allowed
Dismissing these claims also conflicts with the HEA, which states that
32
courts . . . in accordance with the terms of the master promissory
note.” 593 F. 3d 936 (9th Cir. 2010). See Amicus Brief filed in support
33
1) Despite underlying issue at stake, which requires expedited handling of
the case. The defendant delays all of the proceedings, abuses the use of
counsel stated the reason for asking extension for discovery filed on
former counsel did not give her discovery material, despite her repeated
34
Figure 13. Communication with former counsel regarding sudden release of
35
Figure 14. Communication with former counsel regarding ‘delay’ in
3) Course Director for EBCR II, Dr. Ambuj Kumar denied to produce
36
maintain the records as per stipulations stated in Petition for
MCOM faculties for Year I and II regarding the lawsuit filed against
medical school.
She needed the correction to be made, to take her USMLE Step 1, in transfer
medical school. After she made the request, in response the defendant
abruptly closed her e-mail account and her account was sent for permanent
deletion. At the time, the litigation was pending on October 29, 2016 (A-
2204 to 2207). Appellant informed that the USF Health e-mail account
contained relevant document necessary for the court, and should remain
open. However, her former counsel and the defendant insulted her besides
37
addressing the matter that was necessary to complete her medical education
at transfer school. Her former counsel could have disclosed this pertinent
matter to the court, in which it could have been addressed. However, she
was retaliated for requesting this and the counsels withheld court remedy
that would benefited her situation, i.e. injunctive relief for potential
reinstatement at the federal court. Thus, she continued to suffer, halting her
medical education, and preventing her from pursuing her degree in the only
medical school she was accepted to, due to defendant’s denial to correct her
transcripts, and refund her for her tuition. He also prevented her from filing
borrow defense claim with Fedloan Servicing. The foreign offshore school
did not have a disability office (she was stated during medical school
interview that arrangement can be made), it was also not Title IV loan
recipient. Thus, she had to pursue double programs at the same time, to pay
38
Figure 15. Joint program financing options for U.S students.
that the transfer school is a defunct (just few days after her NBME
Perm Inj.).
39
Figure 16. Health Law Firm opinion regarding investigation of
40
Figure 17. E-mail from ECFMG regarding status of transfer medical
school.
41
5) Defendant filed dispositive motion, summary of judgement just few
relevant facts and stated false facts it had just created during
handles medical students and residents who are victims of abuse and
28, 2013 and a complaint filed in writing with Vice Dean on July
42
Figure 18. Motion for SOJ.
43
Figure 19. USF MCOM Handbook 2012; IV. G. & e-mail from Dr. Skalkos.
44
Figure 20. Meeting Dates with Dr. Skalkos, Office of Professional
45
6) A key witness that was necessary for disposition, i.e. second course
director for doctoring II. Her deposition was cancelled last minute due
with the faculty for depositions for nearly two months, however, she
which the faculty was only available to meet; the deposition was
cancelled (A-289-299).
7) The lead counsel, Ray Poole, abruptly resigned shortly after filing
8) The third counsel, was replaced, who had only one week to be
9) At this court, defendant has filed vexatious motions to throw her appeals,
by abuse of procedural tactics as well. (1) For the opening brief, the
defendant counsel stated including FOIA response was okay, thus she
46
However, defendant used the ‘procedural tactic’, which they themselves
opening relief; only to give them a reason to file motion for sanction. (2)
For reply brief, the defendant calculatedly did not send their appendix to
the address which they had just sent their response brief, i.e. Tampa
argument in their response brief. Thus, she had to humbly plea the court
to file her reply brief out of time, while coping through personal
A. Federal Question
initial brief and their motion to oppose filing her reply brief out of time. The
congress intent for ADAAA and Catchall statute of limitation and (1a) “new
the federal law and relevant facts of her case, and (2) prospective relief
47
available under the Federal Catchall Statute of Limitations (Appellant’s
opening brief).
B. Diversity Jurisdiction.
IL., however, due to failed ‘mediation’ and trial dismissed; transfer school
now defunct; she has experienced repercussions and have been living with
her parents. Her credit score is completely depleted, for defaulting on her
loans, whereas it was a ‘good score’ last year. In re. Addison, the court
stated that debtors whose obligations that are large enough to invoke Federal
testimony of the mediation proceedings. The district court stated that the
appellant, by arguing that it had not been paid and by raising an affirmative
48
defense, opened the door to admission of evidence showing the mediation
resulted in payment to the appellant. Fisk Electric Co. v. Solo Constr. Corp.,
March 12, 2018, that with respect to disputed federal loans, and interest of
tax payers money, objectives of the direct loan program and federal interest
that impact the United States; the recommendation to courts federal law
49
Figure 21. Federal Registrar Vol. 83 No. 10619. Retrieved from:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/03/12/2018-
04924/federal-preemption-and-state-regulation-of-the-department-of-
educations-federal-student-loan
50
CONCLUSION
I declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing statements is true and
correct
________________________
_____________________ _______________________
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
Tampa, FL 33616
nausheenkhawaja@gmail.com
51
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
_____________________________
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
4409 West Varn Avenue
Tampa, FL 33616
nausheenkhawaja@gmail.com
52
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 2, 2018, a true and correct copy of the forgoing
motion and exhibits, with first class postage prepaid has been deposited in
the U.S. Mail and filed with the Clerk of the Court for the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and counsel for the defendant-appellee.
Defendant-Appellee(s)
Ms. Lori Mans and Mr. John Dickinson
200 West Forsyth Street
Suit 1700
Jacksonville, FL 32202-4317
________________________ __________________
Plaintiff Date
53