Case · 1:25-cv-25402 · Public-record summary
1:25-cv-25402 — Ivankovich v. Schiller Ducanto & Fleck LLP
Public-record summary of the federal diversity action Ivankovich v. Schiller Ducanto & Fleck LLP, S.D. Fla. 1:25-cv-25402-KMW. Sources: CourtListener; PACER docket. Not a charging document.
Sources: CourtListener; PACER docket · partial index as of Oct 9, 2026 · not a charging document
Latest ruling: DE 97
Partial index, not a merits finding. DE 97 (entered 10/8/26), S.D. Fla. 1:25-cv-25402: order on the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint (DE 33), granted in part and denied in part, Judge Kathleen M. Williams. Pages 1–2 were read. The full order was not yet available on CourtListener as of Oct 9, 2026. Which claims survive is not yet indexed.
court order · partial index · Verified · not a charge
Case metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Case number | 1:25-cv-25402-KMW |
| Court | U.S. District Court, S.D. Florida |
| Judge | District Judge Kathleen M. Williams |
| Filed | November 19, 2025 |
| Cause | 28:1332 Diversity — Petition for Removal |
| Nature of suit | 360 P.I.: Other |
| Plaintiff | Steven Ivankovich |
| Defendant | Schiller Ducanto & Fleck LLP, et al. |
| Defendant | Joseph Seinitz |
| Counsel firms on docket | Meland Budwick, P.A.; Fowler White Burnett, P.A. |
| Pacer case ID | 701589 |
| CourtListener docket ID | 71934386 |
| CourtListener URL | /docket/71934386/ |
Underlying dispute (recited in DE 97, pages 1–2)
- Alleged (DE 97 at 1–2, recital): In October 2021, a former spouse initiated divorce proceedings in Illinois state court (Cook County, In re Marriage of Ivankovich, No. 21 D 9220). The Schiller Firm served as counsel for that spouse.
- Alleged (DE 97 at 1–2, recital): The Illinois court issued two body attachment orders against Steven Ivankovich under 750 ILCS 5/713(a).
- Alleged (DE 97 at 1–2, recital): The second order issued after Mr. Ivankovich was held in indirect civil contempt for failure to pay a $425,000 interim attorneys' fee award to the Schiller Firm.
- Alleged (DE 97 at 2, recital): Plaintiff alleges the Schiller Firm obtained leave to have the civil body-attachment orders entered into the NCIC database and emailed law-enforcement agencies in Illinois and Colorado, labeling the orders “nationwide extraditable.” Plaintiff objected that civil contempt citations are not criminal warrants.
recited allegations, accepted as true for a motion-to-dismiss review only (Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., 116 F.3d 1364, 1369 (11th Cir. 1997)) — not a merits finding · Alleged · not a charge
Key docket entries
Source: CourtListener.
DE 1 — Notice of Removal
Filed 11/19/25 · Schiller Ducanto & Fleck LLP
Notice of Removal filed by Schiller Ducanto & Fleck LLP, with Ivankovich's state-court complaint attached as Exhibit A.
party filing · Alleged · not a charge
DE 33 — Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Schiller Firm)
Fully briefed — Response DE 35, Reply DE 39 (per DE 97 recital)
Defendant's dispositive motion against the amended complaint.
DE 97 — ORDER on Motion to Dismiss
Entered 10/8/26 · Judge Kathleen M. Williams
The docket describes the motion as granted in part and denied in part. The court construed the amended complaint's allegations as true for review. Which claims survive is not yet indexed.
court order · ruling split · Verified · not a charge
Related proceedings
| Case | Forum | Relationship |
|---|
| In re Marriage of Ivankovich, 21 D 9220 | Cook County, Ill. (Domestic Relations) | Underlying divorce. Alleged (DE 97 at 1–2, recital): source of the body-attachment orders and the $425,000 interim attorneys' fee award. |
| 0:26-cv-61150 — Stratmann v. Ivankovich | S.D. Fla. | Civil action (Case No. 0:26-cv-61150). |
| 24-15755 — In re Ivankovich Family LLC | Bankr. S.D. Fla. | Chapter 11 docket. See that case page. |
Limitations
- The DE 97 order is only partially indexed (pages 1–2). The full order was not yet available on CourtListener as of Oct 9, 2026. Which claims survive is not yet indexed.
- Factual background in a Rule 12(b)(6) order is recited under the accept-as-true standard — it is not a merits finding.
- Complaint allegations are party contentions, not findings of fact.
- Nothing here is a court finding.