Hylton v. Hylton, No. 0:25-CV-62206 (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Ayatollah Hylton v. Chivone Janee Hylton, et al.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2026
Majority
Panayotta Augustin-Birch (J.) (unanimous Court)
AYATOLLAH HYLTON, Plaintiff, v. CHIVONE JANEE HYLTON, et..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 166365Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, S.D. Florida.AYATOLLAH HYLTON, Plaintiff,v.CHIVONE JANEE HYLTON, et al., Defendants.CASE NO. 0:25-CV-62206-DIMITROULEAS/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH|Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2026Attorneys and Law FirmsAyatollah Hylton, Coconut Creek, FL, Pro Se.Herman Joseph Russomanno III, Russomanno & Borrello,P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant Chivone Janee Hylton.Gilberto E. Sanchez, Sanchez Law Offices P.A. dba SanchezValencia, Tampa, FL, Antonio F. Valiente, Valiente Law, P.A.,Miami, FL, for Defendant Trudy N. Young.Budget Notary Services, Inc., Tallahassee, FL, Pro Se.Brandon Todd Holmes, Dinsmore & Shohl, Tampa, FL, forDefendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation.Tobechuku Tony Nwahiri, Nwahiri Law, PLLC, Miami, FL,for Defendants Nicole Hamil-Scott, Hamil-Scott Law, P.A.Joey Michael Grant, Lorium PLLC D/B/A Lorium Law, BocaRaton, FL, for Defendants Michael H. Johnson, Michael H.Johnson, P.A.Teresa Marie Hair, Brock and Scott, PLLC, Winston-Salem,NC, for Defendant Brock & Scott, PLLC.OMNIBUS REPORT ANDRECOMMENDATION ON PENDING MOTIONSPANAYOTTA AUGUSTIN-BIRCH UNITED STATESMAGISTRATE JUDGE*1 The Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas, United StatesDistrict Judge, referred this case to the undersigned UnitedStates Magistrate Judge for a ruling on all non-dispositivematters and for a report and recommendation on alldispositive matters. DE 12. The case now comes before theCourt on several pending motions. The Court first discussespending Motions to Dismiss and then second discussespending motions relating to default. The Court then addressesinaccuracies that it discovered in Plaintiff's filings.I. Motions to DismissDefendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation was the firstDefendant to move to dismiss this case. DE 60. PlaintiffAyatollah Hylton responded to that Motion to Dismiss bymoving to strike it. DE 66. The Amended Complaint is filed atdocket entry 21-1. Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporationasserts that the Amended Complaint does not state any claimupon which relief can be granted and is a shotgun pleading.Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation's assertions arecorrect.A. Failure to State a ClaimA court liberally construes a pro se pleading, holding it to aless stringent standard than a pleading that an attorney drafted.Jacob v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, 40 F.4th 1329, 1334 (11thCir. 2022). But the court does not have “license to serve as defacto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficientpleading in order to sustain an action.” In re EllingsworthResidential Cmty. Ass'n, 125 F.4th 1365, 1377 (11th Cir. 2025)(quotation marks omitted). The pro se complaint “must stillcomply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and providesome factual support to plausibly state its claims.” Nezbedav. Liberty Mut. Ins. Corp., 789 F. App'x 180, 182 (11th Cir.2019).“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleadsfactual content that allows the court to draw the reasonableinference that the defendant is liable for the misconductalleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Thepleading must contain more than labels, conclusions, aformulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, andnaked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement. Id.The Amended Complaint pleads claims under the RacketeerInfluenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) andclaims of a civil rights violation, fraud, and forgery. DE21-1. The Amended Complaint does not come close toplausibly stating any of the claims. Each claim is pled as aconclusion without factual allegations that would satisfy anyof the elements of the claim. For example, Plaintiff pleadsa claim of “RICO Enterprise,” but for that claim Plaintiff
AYATOLLAH HYLTON, Plaintiff, v. CHIVONE JANEE HYLTON, et..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2simply alleges, “Defendants formed an association-in-factenterprise structured to misappropriate Plaintiff's equity andobstruct judicial processes using forged instruments andconcealment.” Id. at 2. Similarly, Plaintiff pleads a claim of“Civil RICO” and simply alleges, “Defendants conducted anenterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity causingdirect injury to Plaintiff” and pleads a claim of “RICOConspiracy” and simply alleges, “Defendants knowinglyagreed to participate in the racketeering enterprise.” Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff simply alleges some of the elements of the claimsin a conclusory fashion and does not make factual allegationsthat satisfy those elements.*2 The pleading standard for Plaintiff's fraud claim ishigher than the plausibility standard, and Plaintiff does notmeet the heightened pleading standard either. “In allegingfraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity thecircumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ.P. 9(b). Rule 9(b) is satisfied if the complaint pleads (1)“precisely what statements were made in what documentsor oral representations or what omissions were made,” (2)“the time and place of each such statement and the personresponsible for making (or, in the case of omissions, notmaking) same,” (3) “the content of such statements andthe manner in which they misled the plaintiff,” and (4)“what the defendants obtained as a consequence of thefraud.” Al Rushaid Petroleum Inv. Co. v. Siemens EnergyInc., 159 F.4th 887, 896 (11th Cir. 2025) (quotation marksomitted). Essentially, the fraud claim must identify “thewho, what, when, where, and how of the fraud alleged.”Id. (quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff's fraud claim doesnot meet this standard. The fraud claim simply alleges,“Defendants created, recorded, and enforced forged mortgageinstruments.” DE 21-1 at 3.Plaintiff filed various exhibits along with the AmendedComplaint. DE 22. “A copy of a written instrument that isan exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for allpurposes.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). But the Amended Complaintdoes not explain which claim, element, or allegation eachexhibit is intended to support. Plaintiff cannot simply file aconglomeration of various documents in lieu of providingfactual allegations that plausibly state the claims. TheAmended Complaint does not state any claim upon whichrelief can be granted.B. Shotgun PleadingA shotgun pleading violates the requirement that a pleadingcontain a short and plain statement of the claim showing thatthe pleader is entitled to relief. Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets,878 F.3d 1291, 1294–95 (11th Cir. 2018); see Fed. R. Civ. P.8(a)(2) (requiring a pleading to contain, among other things,“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that thepleader is entitled to relief”). A shotgun pleading fails to somedegree to give the defendants adequate notice of the claimsagainst them and the grounds on which each claim rests. VibeMicro, 878 F.3d at 1295.There are four basic types of shotgun pleadings. Weilandv. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321(11th Cir. 2015). First and most commonly, a pleading isshotgun if it contains “multiple counts where each countadopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing eachsuccessive count to carry all that came before and the lastcount to be a combination of the entire complaint.” Id.Second, a pleading is shotgun if it is “replete with conclusory,vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to anyparticular cause of action.” Id. at 1322. Third, a pleading isshotgun if it does “not separat[e] into a different count eachcause of action or claim for relief.” Id. at 1323. Fourth andfinally, a pleading is shotgun if it asserts “multiple claimsagainst multiple defendants without specifying which of thedefendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, orwhich of the defendants the claim is brought against.” Id.The Amended Complaint is the fourth type of shotgunpleading in that it pleads multiple claims against multipleDefendants without specifying which Defendants areresponsible for which acts or omissions. Plaintiff has namednine Defendants, but Plaintiff has not pled factual allegationsspecifying the acts or omissions that make each Defendantliable for each claim. DE 21-1. The Amended Complaint is ashotgun pleading.Before dismissing a complaint, a court must give a pro separty at least one opportunity to amend if a more carefullydrafted complaint might state a claim. Hall v. Merola, 67F.4th 1282, 1295 (11th Cir. 2023). The Court recommendsthat Plaintiff be given an opportunity to file a SecondAmended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint mustcomply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 9, and10, including the requirements that the Second AmendedComplaint include an appropriate caption, make allegations“in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicableto a single set of circumstances,” identify each legal claimin a separate count, and identify the Defendant(s) that eachlegal claim is brought against. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a), (b). TheSecond Amended Complaint must contain “a short and plain
AYATOLLAH HYLTON, Plaintiff, v. CHIVONE JANEE HYLTON, et..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction,” “a shortand plain statement of [each] claim showing that [Plaintiff] isentitled to relief,” and “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed.R. Civ. P. 8(a). Any fraud count must state with particularitythe circumstances constituting fraud. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). TheSecond Amended Complaint must contain non-conclusory,factual allegations showing why each Defendant is liableunder each count raised against it and must incorporate intoeach count only those allegations that support the count.*3 The Second Amended Complaint must be a singledocument that contains all of Plaintiff's claims and allegationsagainst all of the Defendants. The Second AmendedComplaint may not incorporate by reference other pleadings.See Rivas v. Taylor Made Lending LLC, No. 25-80260-CV,2025 WL 1882831, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2025) (“Plaintiffis reminded that the Amended Complaint supersedes theinitial complaint and becomes the operative pleading in thecase. Therefore, the Amended Complaint must be a singledocument that contains all of Plaintiff's allegations.” (citationomitted)). If Plaintiff attaches documents to the SecondAmended Complaint, the Second Amended Complaint mustexplain which factual allegations each document is intendedto support.Because the Amended Complaint does not state a claimupon which relief can be granted and is a shotgun pleading,the Court recommends that Defendant Freedom MortgageCorporation's Motion to Dismiss [DE 60] be GRANTEDand that the Amended Complaint [DE 21-1] be dismissedwithout prejudice and with leave to amend.1 Several otherDefendants have also filed Motions to Dismiss, some ofwhich are continuing to brief as of the date of this Reportand Recommendation. DE 80; DE 82; DE 83; DE 90; DE 94.The Court recommends that these other Motions to Dismiss(as well as any additional Motions to Dismiss the AmendedComplaint that may be filed after the date of this Report andRecommendation) be DENIED AS MOOT.II. Motions Relating to DefaultPlaintiff moves for default final judgment against DefendantFreedom Mortgage Corporation, contending that DefendantFreedom Mortgage Corporation did not timely respond tothe Amended Complaint. DE 62. But Defendant FreedomMortgage Corporation did timely respond to the AmendedComplaint. After Plaintiff filed the Amended Complainton November 20 [DE 21-1], Defendant Freedom MortgageCorporation had 14 days—until December 4—to respond.Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3) (“[A]ny required response to anamended pleading must be made within the time remaining torespond to the original pleading or within 14 days after serviceof the amended pleading, whichever is later.”). DefendantFreedom Mortgage Corporation timely responded to theAmended Complaint on December 4 by filing its Motionto Dismiss. DE 60; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4) (providing thatserving a Rule 12(b) motion alters the period of time by whichto answer a complaint).Even if Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation had nottimely responded to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff couldnot obtain default final judgment. As explained above, theAmended Complaint does not state a claim upon whichrelief can be granted. A plaintiff cannot obtain defaultfinal judgment on a complaint that does not state a claim.Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1370n.41 (11th Cir. 1997) (explaining that “a default judgmentcannot stand on a complaint that fails to state a claim”).Therefore, Plaintiff cannot obtain default final judgment onthis record. The Court recommends that Plaintiff's Motionfor Default Final Judgment against Defendant FreedomMortgage Corporation [DE 62] be DENIED.*4 Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation moves toset aside the Clerk's default entered against it at docketentry 55. DE 59. The Court recommends that this requestbe GRANTED and that the Clerk's entry of default [DE55] be SET ASIDE because, as already stated, DefendantFreedom Mortgage Corporation timely responded to theAmended Complaint and is not in default. DefendantFreedom Mortgage Corporation also asks for sanctionsagainst Plaintiff for having moved for Clerk's entry ofdefault. The Court recommends that the sanctions request beDENIED. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and may have beenconfused or mistaken about the procedures and deadlinesrelating to pleadings when Plaintiff prematurely soughtClerk's entry of default. While the Court does not recommendsanctions at this time, the Court reminds Plaintiff that prose parties are responsible for following the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure and the Southern District of FloridaLocal Rules. Revol v. Wellington Reg'l Med. Ctr., 855 Fed.App'x 658, 659 (11th Cir. 2021) (“All litigants in federalcourt—pro se or counseled—are required to comply withapplicable procedural rules.”). In sum, the Court recommendsthat Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation's Motion toSet Aside Clerk's Entry of Default and for Sanctions Against
AYATOLLAH HYLTON, Plaintiff, v. CHIVONE JANEE HYLTON, et..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4Plaintiff [DE 59] be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIEDIN PART.Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant Freedom MortgageCorporation's Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the Motion toDismiss was untimely and that the Clerk already had entereddefault against Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation.DE 66. Plaintiff also requests sanctions against DefendantFreedom Mortgage Corporation. The Court recommends thatPlaintiff's Motion to Strike [DE 66] be DENIED becauseDefendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation timely filed theMotion to Dismiss and because the Court is recommendingthat the Clerk's entry of default against Defendant FreedomMortgage Corporation be set aside.Plaintiff moves for default final judgment against DefendantBudget Notary Services, Inc. DE 76. As already stated,Plaintiff cannot obtain default final judgment because theAmended Complaint does not state a claim upon whichrelief can be granted. Chudasama, 123 F.3d at 1370 n.41(explaining that “a default judgment cannot stand on acomplaint that fails to state a claim”). The Court recommendsthat Plaintiff's Motion for Default Final Judgment againstDefendant Budget Notary Services, Inc. [DE 76] beDENIED.Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant Michael H. Johnson'sMotion to Dismiss, arguing that the Motion to Dismiss wasuntimely and that the Clerk already had entered defaultagainst Defendant Michael H. Johnson at docket entry 88.DE 91. Defendant Michael H. Johnson filed his Motionto Dismiss one day late on December 17, as the Courtgranted him until December 16 to respond to the AmendedComplaint. DE 54; DE 90. Just like pro se parties, counseledparties are required to comply with procedural rules anddeadlines. Revol, 855 Fed. App'x at 659 (“All litigants infederal court—pro se or counseled—are required to complywith applicable procedural rules.”). Nevertheless, courts havea strong policy of determining cases on their merits ratherthan through default. Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found.,789 F.3d 1239, 1244–45 (11th Cir. 2015) (“Because of ourstrong policy of determining cases on their merits, however,default judgments are generally disfavored.” (quotationmarks omitted)). The Court therefore recommends that theClerk's entry of default against Defendant Michael H. Johnson[DE 88] be SET ASIDE and that Plaintiff's Motion to StrikeDefendant Michael H. Johnson's Motion to Dismiss [DE 91]be DENIED.III. Plaintiff's Inaccurate CitationsIn order to form recommendations on the motions addressedabove, the Court carefully reviewed Plaintiff's filings anddiscovered that various citations and quotations Plaintiffincludes in filings are inaccurate. As just one example ofthese inaccuracies, on the first page of an opposition atdocket entry 67, Plaintiff cites “Wachovia Bank v. Tien, No.05-60821, 2008 WL 11333017 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2008)”as containing the quoted language, “A last-minute email orsingle communication is insufficient to satisfy Local Rule7.1(a)(3). Motions filed without good-faith conferral may bedenied or stricken.” DE 67 at 1. There is no case (WachoviaBank v. Tien or otherwise) at the Westlaw citation 2008WL 11333017. There was a case in the Southern District ofFlorida that used court file number 05-60821, but that casewas Ely v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration(not Wachovia Bank v. Tien). See Ely v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.Admin., 0:05-cv-60821-RLD (S.D. Fla.). And there was acase by the name of Wachovia Bank v. Tien in the SouthernDistrict of Florida, but there was no order entered in thatcase on February 12, 2008, much less an order containingthe language Plaintiff purports to quote. Suffice it to say thateverything about this particular citation is inaccurate.*5 When a party files a paper in court, the party certifiesthat the representations in that paper are correct to thebest of the party's knowledge, information, and beliefformed after a reasonable inquiry. See Fed. R. Civ. P.11(b). Reasonable inquiry means that parties must checkthe citations and quotations within their filings for accuracy.Relying on artificial intelligence to generate cases to supporta proposition, for example, without verifying the existenceof an actual case that actually stands for the propositionand actually includes any language being quoted is notreasonable inquiry and may lead to sanctions, includingmonetary penalties and dismissal of a party's claims. TheCourt expects all of the parties to this case to act accordingly.IV. RecommendationsFor the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends thatDefendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation's Motion toDismiss [DE 60] be GRANTED and that the remainingMotions to Dismiss [DE 80; DE 82; DE 83; DE 90; DE94] be DENIED AS MOOT. The Court recommends thatthe Amended Complaint [DE 21-1] be dismissed without
AYATOLLAH HYLTON, Plaintiff, v. CHIVONE JANEE HYLTON, et..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5prejudice and with leave to amend. The Court recommendsthat Plaintiff's Motion for Default Final Judgment againstDefendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation [DE 62] beDENIED. The Court recommends that Defendant FreedomMortgage Corporation's Motion to Set Aside Clerk's Entryof Default and for Sanctions Against Plaintiff [DE 59]be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART andthat the Clerk's entry of default against Defendant FreedomMortgage Corporation [DE 55] be SET ASIDE. The Courtrecommends that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike [DE 66] beDENIED and that Plaintiff's Motion for Default FinalJudgment against Defendant Budget Notary Services, Inc.[DE 76] be DENIED. Finally, the Court recommends that theClerk's entry of default against Defendant Michael H. Johnson[DE 88] be SET ASIDE and that Plaintiff's Motion to StrikeDefendant Michael H. Johnson's Motion to Dismiss [DE 91]be DENIED.Within fourteen days after being served with a copy ofthis Report and Recommendation, any party may serve andfile written objections to any of the above findings andrecommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag.R. 4(b). The parties are hereby notified that a failure totimely object waives the right to challenge on appeal theDistrict Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legalconclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation.11th Cir. R. 3-1.DONE AND SUBMITTED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale,Florida, this 5th day of January, 2026.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 166365Footnotes1In addition to asserting that the Amended Complaint does not state a claim and is a shotgun pleading,Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation contends in its Motion to Dismiss that the Court should abstainfrom exercising jurisdiction in this case. Because the Amended Complaint is so lacking in factual allegations,the Court is unable to determine whether an abstention doctrine applies. Thus, the Court cannot evaluateDefendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation's abstention argument based on the current pleading.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