Farag v. Persante, No. 8:25-cv-3056-SDM-AEP (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Farag v. Persante et al
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2026
Disposition
Motion Granted
IBRAHIM SHEHATTA GERGES FARAG, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 194221Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, M.D. Florida.IBRAHIM SHEHATTA GERGES FARAG, Plaintiff,v.ROBERT PERSANTE et al, Defendants.CASE NO. 8:25-cv-3056-SDM-AEP|01/26/2026Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist. Theseinvalid citations appeared in the original court opinion andhave been preserved as written since they are part of theofficial record. Any links to these invalid citations have beenremoved.Attorneys and Law FirmsIbrahim Shehatta Gerges Farag, New York, NY, Pro Se.James R. Brown, Thomas Richard Corey, Wicker, Smith,O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Defendants.ORDER*1 Appearing pro se, Ibrahim Shehatta Gerges Faragsues (Doc. 1) Robert Per-sante (the lawyer) and PersanteZuroweste, P.A. (the firm). The defendants move (Doc. 5) todismiss, and the plaintiff responds. (Doc. 6)BACKGROUNDThe plaintiff was a party to a probate proceeding (the probate)concerning the estate of Mohsen Khalaf Hanna (the decedent)in the Pinellas County Circuit Court (the state court). Thelawyer represented Magda Khalaf Bishara (the personalrepre-sentative).On April 23, 2024, in response to the plaintiff's “Petitionfor Administration,” (plaintiff's petition) the state court foundthat the plaintiff had submitted “inadequate information,”determined that “[c]ounsel will be need[ed] to represent[the plaintiff] in this type of action,” and provided contactinformation for “Free and Low-Cost op-tions” for legalservices. (Doc. 1 at 41)On June 6, 2024, and without legal representation, theplaintiff moved for en-try of a default against the personalrepresentative on the ground that “[m]ore than 20 days havepassed with no appearance or response filed.” The plaintiffalleges that the state court granted a default but fails to attachthe order. (Doc. 1 at 7) The default was apparently not granted,because the probate continued for more than a year after themotion for entry of a default.On June 9, 2024, the plaintiff filed a notice terminating therepresentation of a lawyer who apparently represented theplaintiff earlier and stated — despite the state court ordermandating the plaintiff to retain counsel — that the plaintiffwould ap-pear pro se for the remainder of the probate. (Doc.1 at 45)On October 20, 2025, the personal representative moved todismiss the plain-tiff's (unattached) petition.1 (Doc. 1 at 85)The state court motion to dismiss (the contested motion)alleges that the plaintiff stole from the decedent “Rolexwatches, a significant amount of cash, and account statementsdetailing the decedent's assets.” (Doc. 1 at 76) This allegationis consistent with an attached judgment, translated fromArabic, issued by the North Cairo First Instance Court, whichfound that the plaintiff “stole the movable property...ownedby the [decedent].” (Doc. 1 at 102) The judgment sentencedthe plaintiff to one year in prison with labor and prompted theplaintiff to flee Egypt. (Doc. 1 at 76, 102)The contested motion states that the plaintiff falselyaverred that the personal representative caused an Egyptiannewspaper to publish an article stating that the plaintiff wasin a same-sex relationship with the decedent. (Doc. 1 at 7)The contested motion discusses a “marriage license”submitted by the plain-tiff. Although the import of the licenseis unclear, the contested motion states that the “address listedon the 2017 marriage record...appears to be the address of theElement New York Times Square West hotel, not a residentialapartment building, and which appears to have been operatingsince 2010.” (Doc. 1 at 76–77)*2 The contested motion alleges that the plaintiff “haslaunched a series of per-sonal attacks on [the personalrepresentative] and her family, including threatening tokill her...brother...and falsely contacting [her] children to
IBRAHIM SHEHATTA GERGES FARAG, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2claim that they were fathered by someone other than herhusband.” (Doc. 1 at 77)The contested motion argues that the plaintiff's petitionis procedurally im-proper because the plaintiff's petitionrequests the state court to revoke probate and remove thepersonal representative — an impossible outcome giventhat the state court released the personal representative andconfirmed completion of probate more than five years beforethe plaintiff's petition. (Doc. 1 at 80)The contested motion argues that the petition's request torevoke probate based on alleged fraud is also time-barredunder Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), whichpermits a party to seek relief from a final judgment nolater than one year after entry of the judgment, except incircumstances not pertinent here. (Doc. 1 at 81)Finally, the contested motion argues that the plaintiff'srequested appointment as personal representative is improperbased on the plaintiff's character and his hos-tility towardparties interested in the estate. (Doc. 1 at 84)The plaintiff alleges that the statements contained in thecontested motion are false, including the assertions that theplaintiff threatened to kill the decedent's brother, deniedthe parentage of the decedent's children, burglarized thedecedent's apartment, and fled Egypt to avoid prosecution.(Doc. 1 at 14)In addition to the motion to dismiss, the personalrepresentative moved to strike the plaintiff's evidentlyunauthorized and allegedly “immaterial” pro se filings andopposed the plaintiff's motion to appoint an Arabic-languageinterpreter. (Doc. 1 at 41, 69, 80)Based on three motions filed in state court in connection witha probate that concluded five years earlier, the plaintiff suesthe lawyer and the firm and seeks $20,000,000 in damages foran array of alleged statutory and constitutional viola-tions.DISCUSSIONThe Defendants’ Conduct is Protected by the LitigationPrivilege “[T]he litigation privilege...can be adjudicated on amotion to dismiss if theapplicability of the privilege can be clearly discerned from theface of the complaint.” Latam Invs., LLC v. Holland & Knight,LLP, 88 So. 3d 240, 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). “Defamatorystatements made in the course of judicial proceedings areabsolutely privileged, no matter how false or malicious thestatements may be, so long as the statements are relevantto the subject of inquiry. [A]bsolute immunity must be af-forded to any act occurring during the course of a judicialproceeding...so long as the act has some relation to theproceeding.” Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes &Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Insurance Co., 639 So.2d 606, 608(Fla. 1994).Under Section 733.303, Florida Statutes, “[a] person is notqualified to act as a personal representative if the person...[h]as been convicted of a felony...[h]as been convictedin any state or foreign jurisdiction of abuse, neglect, orexploitation of an elderly person or a disabled adult...[or is] mentally or physically unable to perform theduties.” The challenged statements concerning the plaintiff'scharacter, mental soundness, criminal conviction, and threatsof violence bear directly on the plaintiff's qualification asa prospective personal representative. Because those state-ments have “some relation to the proceeding,” they “areabsolutely privileged.” Levin, 639 So.2d at 608. Accordingly,to the extent any claim depends on an allegedly defamatorystatement by any defendant during the probate and relating tothe plain-tiff's suitability to serve as representative, the claimfails.Count I*3 The basis of Count I is that the state court entered a clerk'sdefault on April 23, 2024, which is purportedly evidencedby Exhibit 1 of the complaint. However, Exhibit 1 is notan entry of default but states that “Counsel will need toRepresent you in this type of case. Please call the followingfor Free and Low-Cost Options: Community Law Program(727) 582-7480 and Gulfcoast Legal Services (727) 821-0726for Assistance.” (Doc. 1 at 41)The plaintiff, citing Exhibit 3, states that “[o]n May 28,2024, the [state] Court entered a formal Certificate of Defaultagainst [the personal representative].” How-ever, Exhibit 3 isnot an order granting a default but the plaintiff's motion for ade-fault, which apparently was never entered. (Doc. 1 at 43)The plaintiff, citing Exhibit 5, asserts that the lawyer appearedin the state-court action “without any lawful authority orcourt approval.” However, Exhibit 5 is the lawyer's notice of
IBRAHIM SHEHATTA GERGES FARAG, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3appearance, filed in accord with the Florida Rules of CivilPro-cedure and the Florida Rules of General Practice andJudicial Administration. (Doc. 1 at 46).The claim fails.Counts II, III, IV, and VThe basis of Counts II, III, IV, and V is the plaintiff'sdisagreement with the ar-guments of the lawyer during theprobate. As such, Counts II, III, IV, and V are barred bythe litigation privilege. Also, the plaintiff cannot establishjurisdiction over Counts II, III, IV, or V because the reliefsought would require a prohibited re-adjudication of theprobate. See Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311 (2006);see also Alexander Kaplan v. Leon Kaplan, 903 F. Supp.2d 1304, 1309 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (Merryday, J.), aff'd, No.14-12212 (11th Cir. Aug. 4, 2015) (per curiam) (“Containinga comprehensive set of rules, a heightened standard ofpersonal-representative liability, and an array of proce-duresfor personal-representative exoneration, the Florida ProbateCode intends to pro-tect the personal representative fromexhausting and expensive collateral litigation, to promote theservice of an attentive and qualified personal representative,and ulti-mately to preserve the resources of the estate throughthe orderly administration of probate.”).In Count II, the plaintiff misquotes Section 733.903,Florida Statutes, as provid-ing that “after discharge, furtheradministration of the estate may be granted if other propertyof the estate is discovered or if it is necessary for anyother purpose.” That language does not appear in the statute.Section 733.903 provides instead: “The final settlement of anestate and the discharge of the personal representative shallnot pre-vent further administration. The order of dischargemay not be revoked based upon the discovery of a will or laterwill.”Each claim fails.Count VIThe basis of Count VI is that the state court's August 6,2025 order “explicitly found that the previous motion wasunsupported by any evidence.” However, the Au-gust 6, 2025motion simply states “set a CMC by phone to discuss statusof the case + the hearing time.” (Doc. 1 at 86–87)Also, Count VI contains additional misstatements. Theplaintiff cites “Holt v. Crown Builders, Inc., 627 So.2d 1221(Fla. 2d DCA 1993)” and “Bennett v. Bivins, 685 Case 8:25-cv-03056-SDM-AEP,” neither of which exists.The claim fails.Count VIIThe basis of Count VII is that the contested motion caused theplaintiff emo-tional distress. The claim fails.CONCLUSIONThe motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the complaintis DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No later thanFEBRUARY 16, 2026, Farag may file an amendedcomplaint. If no amended complaint is filed on or beforeFEBRUARY 16, 2026, an order will dismiss the action (thecase will end). If Farag fails to state a claim in the amendedcomplaint, an order will dismiss the action.*4 In any amended complaint and in addition to resolvingthe deficiencies de-scribed earlier, the plaintiff must (1) pleadhis complaint in separate claims for relief and include no morethan one claim for relief in each count of the amended com-plaint; (2) state above each count in the form of a title or aheading the name of one and only one claim for relief that thecount alleges and whether the claim is based on federal law orbased on state law; (3) separate or identify the facts that sup-port each count from the facts that support another count orcounts; and (4) utilize permissible typeface and font size asprescribed under Local Rule 1.08. For each alleged claim, theplaintiff should provide facts revealing who committed eachimportant act or omission, what each person did or failed todo, when and where the act or omission occurred, how the actor omission affected the plaintiff, and the amount of monetaryloss or other injury the plaintiff sustained as a result.A CAUTION TO FARAGLitigation in federal court is difficult and requires timelycompliance with ap-plicable rules, including the FederalRules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, the Federal Rulesof Evidence, and several procedural, discovery, and other
IBRAHIM SHEHATTA GERGES FARAG, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4orders. A judge cannot assist a party, even a pro se party, inconducting an action. Therefore, Farag is strongly advised toobtain legal advice and assistance — preferably full repre-sentation — from a member of The Florida Bar.To the extent he intends to continue to representhimself in this action, Farag should familiarizehimself with both the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure at https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure andthe Local Rules for the Middle District of Florida athttps://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/local-rules, a copy of eachof which is available in the clerk's office on the secondfloor of the Sam M. Gibbons United States Court-house,801 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Also, Farag canconsult the “Liti-gants Without Lawyers” guide at https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/litigants-without-lawyers.Farag is WARNED that if he or anyone assisting him usedgenerative artificial intelligence to draft the complaint, anyfurther use of generative artificial intelligence resulting in acitation to nonexistent authority, a misquotation of existingauthority, or a patent misrepresentation of the record mayresult in a sanction against Farag un-der Rule 11, FederalRules of Civil Procedure.ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 26, 2026.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 194221Footnotes1Apparently, the plaintiff requested appointment of himself as personal representative. (Doc. 1 at 84)End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access