NO ARGUMENT DATE SET No. 12-7100 in the UNITED STATES
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
USCA Case #12-7100 Document #1429306 Filed: 04/05/2013 Page 1 of 55 NO ARGUMENT DATE SET No. 12-7100 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT TY CLEVENGER, Appellant v. WILLIAM C. CARTINHOUR, JR. Appellee. On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia D.D.C. Case No. 11-cv-1919 (ESH) APPELLANT’S BRIEF __________________________________________________________ Ty Clevenger 1095 Meadow Hill Drive Lavon, Texas 75166 (979) 985-5289 (979) 530-9523 (fax) Appellant Pro Se USCA Case #12-7100 Document #1429306 Filed: 04/05/2013 Page 2 of 55 Circuit Rule 28(a)(1) CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES A. Parties Wade Robertson, William C. Cartinhour, Jr., Michael Bramnick, James G. Dattaro, Neil Gurvitch, Patrick J. Kearney, Carlton T. Obecny, Andrew R. Polott, H. Mark Rabin, Albert Schibani, Robert S. Selzer, Elyse L. Strickland, Tanja Milicevic (a.k.a. Tanja Popovic) Aleksandar Popovic Vesna Kustudic There are no amici. -ii- USCA Case #12-7100 Document #1429306 Filed: 04/05/2013 Page 3 of 55 B. Rulings The rulings under review consist of the rulings of the United States District Court of the District of Columbia, the Honorable Ellen Segal Huvelle presiding, Dist. Ct. No. 11-cv-01919 (ESH), as follows: • March 16, 2012 “Memorandum Opinion & Order” (Doc. No. 94) • August 10, 2012 “Memorandum Opinion” (Doc. No. 116) • August 10, 2012 “Order” (Doc. No. 117) • August 30, 2012 “Memorandum Opinion & Order” (Doc. No. 121) • September 27, 2012 “Memorandum Opinion & Order” (Doc. No. 127) • September 27, 2012 “Order” (Doc. No. 128) C. Related Cases Pursuant to Circuit Rule 28 (c), Appellant submits the following: 1) This case was not previously before this court or any other court as defined by Circuit Rule 28(c). 2) No other related cases are pending in this court or in any other court. 3) A prior case before this Court-- D.C. U.S.C.A. Case No. 11-7026 (consolidated with 11-7076)—involved the Appellant and one of the Defendants/Appellees in this case (William Cartinhour). None of the other thirteen Defendants/Appellees were parties. There is, however, some factual overlap. -iii- USCA Case #12-7100 Document #1429306 Filed: 04/05/2013 Page 4 of 55 TABLE OF CONTENTS CIRCUIT RULE 28(a)(1) CERTIFICATE............................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................................................iv STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................vi STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES...............................................................................1 STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................................2 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................3 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES........................................................................9 I. Summary of Argument ............................................................................9 II. Argument...............................................................................................10 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...............................................................................43 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION .....44 -iv- USCA Case #12-7100 Document #1429306 Filed: 04/05/2013 Page 5 of 55 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court granted a motion to dismiss on behalf of the Defendants and entered an order dismissing this case with prejudice on March 16, 2012. (Appx. 2:712). The Appellant then filed a motion for reconsideration of that order of dismissal on April 13, 2012. (Appx. 2:780-3:783). Thereafter, on May 7, 2012, the district court issued an order granting in part, and denying in part Appellant’s motion for reconsideration. (Appx. 3:1015-1017). Meanwhile, the district court entered an order on August 10, 2012 sanctioning the Appellant. (Appx. 3:1051). The Appellant filed a timely motion to amend / correct the sanctions order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 on September 7, 2012 (Appx. 1104-1153), and another Rule 59 motion on September 24, 2012 to correct the August 30, 2012 order setting the sanctions amount. (Appx. 3:1159- 1162). Both motions were denied on September 27, 2012 (Appx. 3:1163-1165), and the Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal the next day. (Appx. 3:1166). The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the Plaintiff brought federal claims, and further under 28 US.C. §1332 because there was complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. -v- USCA Case #12-7100 Document #1429306 Filed: 04/05/2013 Page 6 of 55 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Alamo v. Del Rosario , 98 F.2d 328 (D.C. Cir. 1938). ................................................................................32 Alexander v. F.B.I., 541 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008)……………………………………………...17 Alpert v. Crain, Caton & James, P.C., 178 S.W.3d 398 (Tex.App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2005). …………………………...25 Aulston v. United States, 823 F.2d 510 (Fed. Cir. 1987) …………………………………………………11-12 Austin v. Downs, Rachlin & Martin Burlington St. Johnsbury, 270 Fed. Appx. 52 (2nd Cir.2008)………………………………………………21 BBS Norwalk One, Inc. v. Raccolta,Inc , 117 F.3d 674 (2nd Cir.1997)……………………………………………………..21 Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., v. 1109580 Ontario, Inc., 409 F.3d 87 (2nd Cir. 2005), .................................................................................21 Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Empresa Naviera Santa S.A., 56 F.3d 359 (2nd Cir. 1995) ..................................................................................23 Chambers v. Nasco, 501 U.S. 32 (1991) ………………………………………………………………15-16 Cinderella Career and Finishing Schools, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 425 F.2d 583 (D.C. Cir. 1970)………………………………………………….. 37 CJC Holdings, Inc. v. Wright & Lato, Inc. 989 F.2d 791 (5th Cir. 1993)……………………………………………………14-15 Clark v. Druckman , 624 S.E.2d 864 (W.Va. 2004)………….... ……………………………………...25 Cobell v. Norton, 319 F. Supp.2d 36 (D.D.C. 2004)………………………………………………17-18 -vi- USCA Case #12-7100 Document #1429306 Filed: 04/05/2013 Page 7 of 55 Coggins v. Buonora, 362 Fed.Appx. 224 (2nd Cir. 2010) .......................................................................24 Conservation Force v. Salazar, 699 F.3d 538 (D.C. Cir. 2012)………………………………………………………2 Cooper v. O'Connor, 99 F.2d 135 (D.C. Cir. 1938) .................................................................................38 Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133 (2nd Cir. 2000)………………………………………………………11 D. & C. Textile Corp. v. Rudin, 246 N.Y.S.2d 813 (Sup.Ct.N.Y. County 1964)…………………………………….26 Dallas v. Fassnacht, 42 N.Y.S.2d 415 (Sup.Ct.N.Y. County 1943)……………………………………..26 Danish v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 151 F. Supp. 17, (S.D.N.Y. 1957)…………………………………………………33 Dory v. Ryan, 25 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir.1994)……..…………………………………………………24 Dubisky v. Owens, 849 F.2d 1034 (7th Cir. 1988)..…………………………………………………..19 Franklin v. Terr, 201 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2000) ..............................................................................24 FTC v. H.J. Heinz Co., 246 F.3d 708 (D.C.Cir.2001)……………………… ………………………………2 Gaston & Co. v. All Russian Zemsky Union, 224 N.Y.S. 522 (1927)… ………………………………………………………32-33 Glen Oaks Utils., Inc. v. City of Houston, 280 F.2d 330 (5th Cir.1960)………………………………………………………12 -vii- USCA Case #12-7100 Document #1429306 Filed: 04/05/2013 Page 8 of 55 Grid Systems Corp. v. John Fluke Mfg. Co, 41 F.3d 1318 (1994)……. …………………………………………………....14-15 Healey v. Labgold, 271 F. Supp. 2d 303 (D.D.C. 2003)………………………………………………....14 Ingersoll Mill. Mach. Co. v. Granger, 833 F.2d 680 (7th Cir. 1987).................................................................................12 INVST Financial Group, Inc. v. Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., 815 F.2d 391 (6th Cir. 1987) ……………………………………………………….19 Kahala Royal Corp. v. Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel, 151 P.3d 732 (Hawaii 2007)……………………………………………………….25 Kahre-Richardes Family Found., Inc. v. Cillage of Baldwinsville, 141 F.3d 1151 (2d Cir. 1998)……………………………………………………….22 Kahre-Richardes Family Found., Inc. v. Vill. of Baldwinsville, N.Y., 953 F. Supp. 39 (N.D.N.Y. 1997) …………………………………………………22 Kasen v. Morrell, 183 N.Y.S.2d 928 (Sup.Ct.Kings County 1959) ...................................................26 Kickapoo Tribe v. Babbitt, 43 F.3d 1491 (D.C.Cir.1995)………………………………………………………2 Legnani v. Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane, S.p.A., 400 F.3d 139 (2nd Cir. 2005).................................................................................23 Lewis v. Brown & Root, Inc., 711 F.2d 1287 (5th Cir.1984)………………………………………………………..18 Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) ………………………….…………………………………..40 Maharaj v. Bankamerica Corp., 128 F.3d 94 (2nd Cir.1997)………………………………………………………23 Matter of Case, 937 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir.1991)………………………………………………………..15 -viii- USCA Case #12-7100 Document #1429306 Filed: 04/05/2013 Page 9 of 55 Mitchell v. Sirica, 502 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ...............................................................................39 Monk v. Roadway Express, Inc., 599 F.2d 1378