Case Docket No.

17-11888
Case Docket No. 17-12134
Case Docket No. 17-12376
_________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_______________________________________________________

NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN
APPELLANT

v.

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES

APPELLEE

________________________________________________________

MOTION OF OPPOSITION TO STRIKE APPELLANT’S

AFFIDAVIT IN HER REPLY IN RESPONSE TO APPELLE’S
OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT MOTION FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
_______________________________________________________

APPELLANT
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
4409 West Varn Avenue
c Tampa, FL 33616
nausheenkhawaja@gmail.com

Pro Se

July 14, 2018

 ARGUMENT

COMES NOW, Nausheen Zainulabeddin, Pro Se, pursuant to Fed. R.

App. P. 27(a)(4) files Motion of opposition to Strike her Motion

disclosing Confidential Information regarding ‘Mediation Communications’

in Appellant’s Affidavit included in the Motion of Reply in Response to

Appellee’s opposition to Appellant’s Motion for Permanent Injunction,

(specifically section 2 of Affidavit).

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

and arduous efforts in support of her plea for injunction1.

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:

1) The mediation was a “sham” due to lack of jurisdiction over the

“interpleaded funds”, presence and disclosure to Secretary of

Education, as its fiduciary responsibility for any dispute that involve

federal funds. F.R. Vol. 82 No. 211

2) The exception to Florida Statutes allows the litigant to disclose

information that would reveal ongoing criminal wrong doings and

abuse. FA Stat 44.05(1)

3) The mediation was not conducted in “good faith”, as it is evident with

respect to proximity of defendant’s lead counsel, Mr. Ray Poole’s

filing of summary of judgement, just few days before scheduled

mediation date; then abruptly cancelled the mediation date, and

thereafter, the lead counsel resigned when Appellant’s counsels had

already traveled to Florida.

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

Appellee’s motion is not entitled to relief because there is no

existence of ‘protective court proceeding’ to which it seeks relief. In Pitts v.

Francis, the federal Judge determined that the Florida case that he had

ordered for “‘mediation’ was ‘sham”, thus the communications conducted in

the alleged mediation were not confidential. No. 5:07CV169-RS-EMT, 2007

WL 4482168 at 13 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 19, 2007). The judge stated reasons to

why mediation technically had not occurred in which parameters would be

necessary to which a mediator would have jurisdiction and necessary

perquisite of counsel’s compliance to rules, statutes and relevant law.

A. No Jurisdiction without presence of Interpleader

The Department states in Federal Registrar Vol. 81, No. 211; that any

litigation proceedings in which the stipulated demand involves Federal funds

as deemed “triggering event”, i.e. survival of motion to dismiss and in the

docket for more than 120 days; in which the claims raise a borrower defense,

it is a fiduciary responsibility to inform Department of Education. Disclosing

the the “triggering event” to the Department allows it to carry out its

“prophylactic and preventative” measures to protect the other students,

4
public’s interest, tax payer money and prevent further collateral damages in

which expedited resolution to the dispute is necessary. The danger of

liability on the United States for institution’s wrong doings is a risk, in

which it is of best interest to protect tax payer’s money. The defendant is

well aware that her claims are subject ‘borrower defense’ as a copy of the

Falsification of Discharge demanding refund of her tuition to be credited to

her account was provided to General Counsel for USF Health, Mrs. Roberta

Burford during Petition for Readmission proceedings in 2014 (A2-1798-

1805; 1602; A-1737; However, defendant’s silence, yet vexatious efforts to

block interpleaders rights to suggests defendant’s culpability.

2
Page numbers in Appellant’s opening brief “A”-.

5
Figure 1. Federal Registrar Vol. 81 No. 211. Published November 2016.

Retrieved from: https://ifap.ed.gov/fregisters/attachments/FR110116.pdf

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

to distribute the registry funds according to the terms of settlement.

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

to 28 U.S.C. 1292(a), the court can grant jurisdiction to hear an appeal of an

interlocutory order regarding the injunction of an interpleader for disputed

interpleaded funds. Ass’n of Co-op. Members, Inc. v. Farmland Indus., Inc.,

684 F.2d 1134, 1138 (5th Cir. 1982).

Appellant’s former counsel filed the suit at the state court, which was

transferred to district court pursuant to Federal Question Jurisdiction, 28

USC 1331 and Diversity Jurisdiction 28 USC 1332 (A-181-186). After

removal of the case to the federal court; the court had jurisdiction and the

facts of the case continued to show that there is an interpleader jurisdiction.

7
 B. Florida Statute 44.102. Mediator had no jurisdiction over cases

involving debt [student loan cases].

The district court ordered for mandatory mediation on November 9,

2016. He stated in his order that the mediation necessitates compliance to

local circuit rules 9. This Local Circuit Rule of Florida Middle District

(“FMD”) differs from stipulations stated in which Mediation is not

permissible pursuant to Florida Statute 44.102., i.e. cases that involve

collection of debt, “student loan cases” as indicated below. This is also

further clarified in Florida Southern District Court Rule 16.2, which

explicitly complies with Florida Statute 44.102 (Fig. 2, 3).

8
Figure 2. Local Circuit Rules of Florida Southern Middle Court, Rule 16.2.

Retrieved from: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olp/docs/fl-

south.pdf

Figure 3. Florida Statutes 44.102., applicable for Mediation Date on March

22, 2017. Retrieved from

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

made by the Department of Education in Federal Registrar Vol. 81 No. 211,

published November 2016. The final regulations stated by DOE; discourages

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.

However, the defendant can use their gamesmanship procedural tactics

against students, that may have limited experience, to compel students to

settle; which is no different than “arbitration”. This is a deviation from the

Department’s intent regarding unauthorized use of settlement procedures for

funds involving direct loan program. This also deviates from the Florida

statutes, discouraging the usage of mediation for cases that involve

collection of debt (Fig. 2, 3, 4).

10
Figure 4. Federal Registrar Vol. 81 No. 211. Published November 2016.

Retrieved from: https://ifap.ed.gov/fregisters/attachments/FR110116.pdf

11
 C. ‘Local Culture’

The district court, pursuant to ‘local culture’, orders a court-ordered

mediation, in which the rate is $375 per hour. This is not the rate that abides

by Florida Statutes, based on circumstances unique to each litigant.

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

USF’s “regular mediator.” Judge James Moody has been assigned to

numerous USF cases. Whether the Judge automatically sets the price, as per

‘local culture’, because that is the price USF’s ‘regular mediator’ charges

raises highly ethical concerns, based on the context and circumstances

created which can subject his duties to “easily shift” from mediation to an

unauthorized ‘arbitrator’ over federal funds, which he had no jurisdiction

(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

brief, Appendix, Vol II; Page A-276-280.

13
Fig. 5a. Cost of Mediation date pursuant to Florida Statutes.

D. Deviation from Mediation Rules

The Department of Education entrusts the state agencies and local

government to appropriate its actions with respect to meeting the direct loab

program objectives set by the Principal as a respondent superior. In regards

to the proceedings for mediation; the Florida Statutes 164.1058 requires

good faith efforts during mediation which involve intergovernmental

relations. The Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators,

Rule 10.520 Compliance with Authority state that “a mediator shall comply

with all statutes, court rules, court rules, local court rules, and administrative

orders relevant to the practice of mediation”. Hence, Florida Rules of Civil

Procedure 1.720, requires physical appearance of parties during mediation to

negotiate pursuant to its policy limits and up to the last demand stated by the

party as indicated below:

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:

1) The party or a party representative having full authority

to settle without further consultation; and
2) The party’s counsel of record, if any; and
3) A representative of the insurance carrier for any insured
party who is not such carrier’s outside counsel and who
has full authority to settle in an amount up to the amount
of the plaintiff’s last demand or policy limits, whichever
is less, without further consultation.

(c) Party Representative Having Full Authority to Settle. A “party

representative having full authority to settle” shall mean the final
decision maker with respect to all issues presented by the case who
has the legal capacity to execute a binding settlement agreement on
behalf of the party. Nothing herein shall be deemed to require any
party or party representative who appears at a mediation conference in
compliance with this rule to enter into a settlement agreement.

(d) Appearance by Public Entity. If a party to mediation is a public

entity required to operate in compliance with chapter 286, Florida
Statutes, that party shall be deemed to appear at a mediation
conference by the physical presence of a representative with full
authority to negotiation on behalf of the entity and to recommend
settlement to the appropriate decision –making body of the entity.

15
 E. ‘Good Faith’

Prior to the initiation of the mediation process, Appellant’s former

counsel stated to her that the representatives present in mediation do not

have the authority to negotiate in ‘good faith’. He stated that the

determination as to monetary award is authorized by insurance carrier,

representative from Florida Department of Risk and Management, pursuant

to Florida Statute 284. The Department of Risk and management coverage

include federal civil rights in which actions of state officials alleged to have

violated someone’s constitutional rights, general liability for state agency

premises and operations and discriminatory ‘employment’ practices. There

is no monetary limits for Federal Civil Rights Statutes and the general

liability limits which include negligence is $200,000. The representative

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

$30,000 to students who have lawsuits against USF. He stated that

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

to conduct negotiation in good faith were not “physically present” as per

stipulations he had written and discussed with her via email. However, she

proceeded with the course of mediation as instructed by her counsel, since

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

22, 2017, with attached (Fig. 6a).

17
Fig. 6a. Document prepared for Mediation prior to Mediation date.

18
 II. Ongoing criminal conduct

Florida state law states indicates exception to mediation

confidentiality in Fla. Stat. 44.405(1), which provides that all mediation

communications are confidential unless they fit within an exception

delineated in the Act. The Act, however, excludes “the commission of a

crime during....mediation” from the definition of mediation communication.

Fla. Stat. 44.403(1). Significantly and specifically excluded from

confidentiality is mediation communication” [t]hat is willfully used to plan a

crime, commit or attempt to commit a crime, conceal ongoing criminal

activity.....” Fla. Stat. 44.405(4)(a)(2).

Figure 7. Motion to Dismiss filed at the district court.

19
 A. Underlying issue and Dilatory conduct

Defendant made material misrepresentation in its opposition to her

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

be sought pending court procedures, she sought equitable relief in

quasijudicial forum, i.e. when she filed a complaint with Department of

Justice on 10/31/16, which was pending and reviewed for six months, since

her former counsel stated that injunctive relief is only available in

Mediation. Thus, she made sincere effort to seek injunction during

mediation, with her medical education halted at her transfer medical school,

which she attributes to their investigation; while her request to NBME

Disability Services for accommodations was pending and had completed the

Kaplan USMLE Step1 comprehensive program was prepping to take

USMLE and start third year.

20
Figure 8. NBME Disability Accommodations granted on April 3, 2017.

21
 Defendant moves to strike her affidavit, for disclosing “confidential

information”, which was stated to support their false statement in their

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,

that can be further confirmed in writing prepared by her former counsel,

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

comprehensive Kaplan course, and was preparing to take the USMLE;

acknowledging that recall knowledge fades with time, despite strong

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

with Department of Education, Fedloan Servicing for refund of her tuition

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

Loan servicing or for injunction. Appellant confirmed this in writing, since

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.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed that an exception to mediation

confidentiality is “bad faith” or “due process”, stating that “Due process

demanded that the Court allow the jury to hear the testimony regarding

parties’ mediation statement”. In Craig Milhouse and Pamela Milhouse v.

Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, the court ruled that to exclude

crucial evidence would deny Traveler’s of its due process right to present a

defense. The Cassel v. Superior Court judicially crafted a due process

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

undermine the statutory purpose”. 51 Cal. 4th. 113, 119 (2011).

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

court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with orderly administration

of justice. 709 F. 2d. 585 (9th Cir. 1983). There is four step process in

examination of fraudulent litigation practice:

(1) Offering party and his duties

(2) Conduct at issue and its effect on the judicial machinery

(3) Victim’s status during the underlying litigation—i.e. whether the

harmed party was in a position to recognize and combat the fraud at

issue prejudgment—and

(4) The relief sought.

Allege patterns:

1. The university obstructed justice during US DOE OCR investigation

for OCR case no. 04-14-2487, and materially misrepresented false

facts (A-1766-1769). Relevant facts:

o It did not disclose the Dr. Specter’s error from 2010-

2012. The university agent that was interviewed by US

25
 DOE OCR, stated that the reason she was not

accommodated from 2010-2012, was because she did not

“request” accommodations. However, as USF MCOM

Handbook, providing a copy of the neuropsychological

evaluation is a form of request, in which Dr. Specter calls

the disability coordinator to inform the office regarding

the concern and that a student requires accommodations.

o The defendant stated she had only passed Year I in four

years at medical school. However, she had completed

Year I and II by the end of the academic year. In fact, her

transcript indicated all of the credits were completed. She

successfully passed the final exam. Her Year I and II

were also audited by ECFMG to take USMLE, in which

requires a student to successfully complete Year I and II

to be eligible to take USMLE (Fig 16 and 17).

o Defendant stated to US DOE OCR, that Appellant could

not complete the curriculum in six years. Though, the

university is unconsciously discriminating against her for

26
 holding their negligence against her, which is presumed

as a form of retaliation, by placing her in academic

probation standing, accrued student loans. The failing

grades in her transcript would also impact gaining future

employment, i.e. residency. Furthermore, capitalizing on

their negligence, by fabricating clinical evaluations from

2012-2013, withholding the ones that would expose their

fraud and state that as the basis of their “subjective

interpretation” which they have no support. Whereas, the

the numerical scores including passing above the

benchmark on CBSE, earning above average on clinical

evaluations from 2009-2012, and also in transfer medical

school (Motion for Perm. Injun.).

o Furthermore, the defendant contradicts the statement,

disputed in this this court when it stated to US DOE OCR

investigator, that the policy to complete medical

curriculum is six years, whereas, it further confirmed by

referencing to the Graduate Catalog that states it is 10

27
 years. This is also ‘corrected’ in the new USF MCOM

Handbook for 2017-2018, in which six-year reference

has been deleted to reflect the policy stated in the

Graduate Catalog. The copy of both catalogs were

provided to this court in support of her motion to rule on

her time-sensitive motion for injunction within 30 days

(Notice to the court to rule on Motion for Inj. Within 30

days filed on 6/11/18).

2. The suit was filed on 1/22/16, and transferred by defendant to the

federal court based on based on Federal Question and Diversity

Jurisdiction on 3/17/16. No joinder party, nor interpleader was filed

with respect to federal loans in dispute.

3. Defendant files Motion to dismiss, stating the basis of statute of

limitation expiration was that she first a complaint for the first time

time to which cause of action would be sustained on May 12, 2015, in

which a copy of the complaint was filed with Florida Department of

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

Master Promissory Note, a student is required to file a complaint with

U.S. Department of Education, in which the agency will investigate

acts that are continual violations. Initial complaint filed 3/20/14, the

department was notified that Petition for Readmission on 5/28/14, in

which aa copy of the OCR complaint pending was provided with her

Petition (A-1840; A-1833-1935). Her petition was denied, thus she

filed the second complaint as instructed by the US DOE Program

Manager, Ms. Deborah Shields on 8/29/14. The final agency decision

was rendered on December 16, 2015 (A-1786).

29
 Figure 10. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; A-

Fig. 10 (a). Florida Statute 768 (6)(a).

30
 Figure 11. Letter from US DOE OCR to USF President, Dr. Genshaft

regarding initiation of investigation.

31
 4. The Motion to Dismiss denied liability for its misrepresentation,

omission, negligence that was medical based on context. The

defendant denies any existence of Federal Loan Master Promissory

Note for Direct Loans, in which it has fiduciary responsibility to its

respondent superior to use federal funds pursuant to stipulations and

provisions of Higher Education Act of 1965 (Exhibit 2). However, in

the Motion it denies its liability to its contracts, student handbooks,

catalogs and rule book. In Ross v. Creighton Univ the court indicated

that “school catalogs, handbooks, bulletins, and regulations should be

considered part of the contract between the school and its student. 957

F. 2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992) (basic legal relationship between student and

school is contractual in nature). In Chae v. SLM Corp., the court held

that “At a minimum, the state law contract and fraud claims allowed

to proceed. Fulfillment of contract obligations and avoidance of

deception are fundamental underpinnings of commerce, and federal

student lenders should not be immunized or above the rule of law.

Dismissing these claims also conflicts with the HEA, which states that

“FFEL loan agreements shall be enforceable in all federal and state

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

of this case, Exhibit 1.

Figure 12. Motion to Dismiss: Defendant’s argument that University

abides by no contracts. A-199-209.

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

dispositions to “create evidence”, and misrepresents facts. The discovery

was scheduled to end on Jan 3, 2017. There were no depositions nor

movement of the case from August to beginning of December 2016. One

of the lead councils abruptly resigned on September 9, 2016. Her former

counsel stated the reason for asking extension for discovery filed on

11/29/16, was because the opposing counsel suddenly gave voluminous

discovery material on Thanksgiving weekend, 11/28/16. Appellant’s

former counsel did not give her discovery material, despite her repeated

requests. Thus, she believed his affirmation, in which ‘both counsels’

filed “joint motion for enlargement of discovery and dispositive motion.

34
Figure 13. Communication with former counsel regarding sudden release of

voluminous record close to discovery.

2) The court ordered mandatory Mediation date on 11/09/16, however,

the defendant failed to schedule ‘mediation’ date for nearly three

months. The ‘mediation’ was scheduled for 2/10/17.

35
 Figure 14. Communication with former counsel regarding ‘delay’ in

scheduling Mediation Date.

3) Course Director for EBCR II, Dr. Ambuj Kumar denied to produce

record regarding her EBCR II grade (A-908-927). He stated he lost

her records related to EBCR II, when in fact, he was required to

36
 maintain the records as per stipulations stated in Petition for

Readmission in 2014, in which she was affirmed that EBCR II Appeal

will be reviewed, March 2014 to August 2014/ Documents that were

necessary to be secured pending US DOE OCR investigation, in

which her investigator stated that EBCR II and Doctoring II grades

will be investigated [since they were included in her Petition for

Readmission], September 2014 to February 2014. A notice sent to US

MCOM faculties for Year I and II regarding the lawsuit filed against

medical school.

Defendant denied to correct the record on October 2016, that led to

initial denial for accommodations from NBME Disability Services in 2013.

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

for living expenses while pursing medicine (Fig. 15).

38
 Figure 15. Joint program financing options for U.S students.

4) He also knew that the unaccredited Caribbean medical schools and

their students were under investigation. She was informed by ECFMG

that the transfer school is a defunct (just few days after her NBME

Disability Services accommodations was approved). Her medical

education was halted in the meantime, her financial state depleting;

further exacerbating her chronic insomnia and dysmenorrhea (Mt. for

Perm Inj.).

39
 Figure 16. Health Law Firm opinion regarding investigation of

Caribbean Medical schools.

40
 Figure 17. E-mail from ECFMG regarding status of transfer medical

school.

41
 5) Defendant filed dispositive motion, summary of judgement just few

days before the scheduled ‘mediation date’ (A-303-326). The

summary of judgement made material misrepresentations, omitted

relevant facts and stated false facts it had just created during

depositions. It purposely omitted all acts to which cause of action was

sustained from May 28, 2013 to December 16, 2015. It also

misrepresented the actual set of events when it stated that Appellant

‘file’ a University’s internal complaint. As per USF MCOM

Handbook, the Office of Professional Development. Dr. Skalkos,

handles medical students and residents who are victims of abuse and

mistreatment. Dr. Skalkos assisted her in discovering the University’s

error 2010-2012 on February 8, 2012; and all complaints as per

University’s procedures were reported to her, from Jan 2012 to May

28, 2013 and a complaint filed in writing with Vice Dean on July

2013 (Fig. 18, 19, 20 and A-1726- 1734).

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

Development. (see Fig. 19).

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

to unforeseen circumstances. Conscientious effort was made to meet

with the faculty for depositions for nearly two months, however, she

had cancelled on several occasions. On the last day of discovery, in

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

summary of judgement and abruptly cancelled mediation that was

scheduled for 2/10/17. He agreed to reimburse her former counsel and

her for travel expenses (A-1424).

8) The third counsel, was replaced, who had only one week to be

accustomed to the case. She filed a reply to summary of judgement

just few days before the set mediation date (A-1424).

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

requested extension to file her brief, while awaiting FOIA response.

46
 However, defendant used the ‘procedural tactic’, which they themselves

agreed to as per stipulation for requesting the extension to file the

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

address. The appendix, in retrospect, had no bearing to facts nor

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

hardships as stated in the respective motions.

III. Federal Jurisdiction.

A. Federal Question

Appellant’s appeals survived defendant’s motion to strike her

initial brief and their motion to oppose filing her reply brief out of time. The

arguments in her briefs requested de novo review; evoking Federal Question

Jurisdiction. Her appeal discussed de novo review with respect to (1)

congress intent for ADAAA and Catchall statute of limitation and (1a) “new

rights” created based on contextual interpretation of the new amendment to

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.

At the time of filing her suit, appellant was a transfer application at

Atlantic Univ. School of Medicine (AUSOM), in which she was assigned to

Rotation and USMLE Step 1 review in Chicago, IL at Jackson Park

Hospital. Since September 2015 to present, she has residence in Chicago,

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

diversity jurisdiction to challenge state agency’s actions, based on undue

hardship grounds. 240 B.R. 47 (C.D. Cal. 1999).

The Eleventh Circuit has reviewed a district court’s application of the

Mediation Confidentiality and Privilege Act in its decision to admit

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.,

417 F. App’x 898, 902 (11th Cir. 2011).

The Secretary of Education made an announcement recently, on

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

preempts the state law. Federal Registrar Vol. 83 No. 10619.

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

THEREFORE, Appellant plea the court to grant her motion for

permanent injunction, equitable relief as deemed appropriate and deny

Appellee’s motion to strike her Affidavit Section 2.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing statements is true and

correct

Executed on July 14, 2018

________________________

Nausheen Zainulabeddin, Appellant

Dated: July 14, 2018

_____________________ _______________________

(Date) (Signature of Appellant)

Nausheen Zainulabeddin

4409 West Varn Avenue

Tampa, FL 33616

nausheenkhawaja@gmail.com

51
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that:

1. The foregoing Brief for Nausheen Zainulabeddin complies with

the volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 28(d)(2) because the brief contains
___5200___ words.

2. The motion complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R.

App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. 32(a)(6)
because it has been prepared in proportionally spaced font using Microsoft
Word Office 365 Version 15.21.1 in Times New Roman 14-point font.

_____________________________
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.

Clerk of the Court for the

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
56 Forsyth Street N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303

Defendant-Appellee(s)
Ms. Lori Mans and Mr. John Dickinson
200 West Forsyth Street
Suit 1700
Jacksonville, FL 32202-4317

________________________ __________________
Plaintiff Date

53