web analytics

Another Crazy Day in Parisi v Sinclair: Will This Ever End?

June 1, 2011
By

Updated Thursday June 2, 2011 @ 6:51 PM ET

Larry sent the following to all parties to Parisi v Sinclair today after the activity on the Courts Docket:

Greetings Counsel:

In light of the actions by the Honorable Judge Richard J. Leon today,  Defendant Sinclair will not be filing a Motion for Reconsideration of the Judge’s ORDER granting Booksellers Joint Motion. While Defendant Sinclair feels the Booksellers Motion is prejudicial to him and Defendant Rense, Sinclair respects the fact that Judge Leon has corrected and changed the date of his May 27, 2011 order indicating he was aware of the oppositions filed to it.

I would also like to thank all counsel for their speedy replies to our emails concerning Local Rule 7m and noting their opposition in a timely manner.

Should the Plaintiff’s file an appeal in the DC Circuit as to the trial court’s dismissal of claims against the bookseller’s then we would move to STAY Parisi v Sinclair pending a decision from the DC Circuit.

Mr. Sifton, thank you for responding to our request for BAM to state its position on motion for reconsideration.

Mrs. Steinman, thank you for your reply concerning Local Rule 7m compliance.

 

UPDATED Thursday June 2, 2011 @ 12:51 PM ET

Just when you think things could not get any crazier they do. It feels like Ground Hog Day all over again. We go to sleep only to wake up with the flurry of activity that ended yesterday still going on today.

First the Clerk enters Final Judgment in the case as to the Bookseller Defendants Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com and Books-A-Million

U.S. District Court
District of Columbia
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 6/2/2011 at 8:09 AM and filed on 6/2/2011

Case Name: PARISI et al v. SINCLAIR et al
Case Number: 1:10-cv-00897-RJL
Filer:  
Document Number: 113
   

Docket Text:
FINAL JUDGMENT, Dismissing all claims against Barnes and Nobles, Books-A-Million, Amazon.com,Inc’s with prejudice. (kc )

Then Judge Leon issue’s a corrected ORDER granting Bookseller’s Joint Motion for Certification dated June 1, 2011.

U.S. District Court
District of Columbia
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 6/2/2011 at 9:58 AM and filed on 6/2/2011

Case Name: PARISI et al v. SINCLAIR et al
Case Number: 1:10-cv-00897-RJL
Filer:  
Document Number: No document attached
   

Docket Text:
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY [111] Order on Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) was entered in error and was REFILED as docket entry [114].(jth)

U.S. District Court
District of Columbia
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 6/2/2011 at 9:54 AM and filed on 6/2/2011

Case Name: PARISI et al v. SINCLAIR et al
Case Number: 1:10-cv-00897-RJL
Filer:  
Document Number: 114
   

Docket Text:
ORDER Granting Joint Motion [106] For Rule 54(b) Certification. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed to enter a final judgment dismissing all claims against the Booksellers with prejudice. (SEE THE ORDER FOR DETAILS). Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 6/1/2011. (jth)

Only to be followed by Parisi Counsel Richard J. Oparil’s refiling the same Motion’s he filed yesterday (DKT 112) seeking reconsideration of Judge Leon’s order’s of March 31, 2011 and June 1, 2011 (DKT 115)

U.S. District Court
District of Columbia
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered by Oparil, Richard on 6/2/2011 at 10:48 AM and filed on 6/2/2011

Case Name: PARISI et al v. SINCLAIR et al
Case Number: 1:10-cv-00897-RJL
Filer: DANIEL PARISI
  WHITEHOUSE.COM INC.
  WHITEHOUSE NETWORK LLC
  WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS INC.
Document Number: 115
   

Docket Text:
MOTION for Reconsideration re [113] Judgment, [114] Order, [103] Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, [102] Memorandum & Opinion, Notice of Corrected Docket Entry, [111] Order on Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b), Order on Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) and for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint by DANIEL PARISI, WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS INC., WHITEHOUSE NETWORK LLC, WHITEHOUSE.COM INC. (Oparil, Richard)

which Judge Leon had followed by ruling the original filing (DKT 112) as MOOT.

U.S. District Court
District of Columbia
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 6/2/2011 at 12:11 PM and filed on 6/2/2011

Case Name: PARISI et al v. SINCLAIR et al
Case Number: 1:10-cv-00897-RJL
Filer:  
Document Number: No document attached
   

Docket Text:
MINUTE ORDER finding as moot [112] Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is found moot. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 6/2/2011. (lcrjl3)

We can honestly say that the last 24 hours has been like a bad dream playing over and over again. While Larry believes the Court’s granting the Booksellers Joint Motion for Certification does prejudice him and Rense, he has decided to let it go and see if Parisi decides to continue to pay Attorney’s to appeal to the DC Circuit. Either way this case needs to either be dismissed altogether or the trial process needs to begin to move forward.

Original Article Below

Talk about a strange set of circumstances and a day of yo-yo-ing between all parties in Parisi v Sinclair. As was published here last week, the Bookseller Defendants (Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com & Books-A-Million) filed a “Joint Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification of Judge Leon’s March 31, 2011 ORDERs.

Parisi v Sinclair:Have The Bookseller Defendant’s Made A Deal With The Devil?

Monday’s Medley: Parisi v Sinclair; US Secret Service & DC Metro PD FOIA Requests…..

Per the DC Local Rules any oppositions to the Bookseller’s Joint Motion would have to be filed with the Court NO LATER than June 6, 2011. Larry actually filed his opposition yesterday, May 31, 2011

U.S. District Court
District of Columbia
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 5/31/2011 at 8:26 PM and filed on 5/31/2011

Case Name: PARISI et al v. SINCLAIR et al
Case Number: 1:10-cv-00897-RJL
Filer: LAWRENCE W. SINCLAIR
Document Number: 109
   

Docket Text:
Memorandum in opposition to re [106] Joint MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) CertificationJoint MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) Certification filed by LAWRENCE W. SINCLAIR. (SINCLAIR, LAWRENCE)

after Matthew Segal (Left) of Pacifica Law Group in Seattle and counsel for Defendant Amazon.com sent Larry an email claiming any opposition would be due by June 1, 2011. Defendant Rense filed their opposition today

U.S. District Court
District of Columbia
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered by Zawitoski, JoAnne on 6/1/2011 at 1:57 PM and filed on 6/1/2011

Case Name: PARISI et al v. SINCLAIR et al
Case Number: 1:10-cv-00897-RJL
Filer: JEFFREY RENSE
Document Number: 110
   

Docket Text:
Memorandum in opposition to re [106] Joint MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) CertificationJoint MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) Certification filed by JEFFREY RENSE. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Zawitoski, JoAnne)

also to avoid any possibility of filing late. Just hours after Defendant Rense filed their Opposition the Court Clerk entered the following ORDER on the docket showing Judge Leon had in fact GRANTED the Bookseller’s Joint Motion on Friday May 27, 2011 before the other parties were allowed to timely file their oppositions.

U.S. District Court
District of Columbia
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 6/1/2011 at 4:14 PM and filed on 6/1/2011

Case Name: PARISI et al v. SINCLAIR et al
Case Number: 1:10-cv-00897-RJL
Filer:  
Document Number: 111
   

Docket Text:
ORDER granting the Booksellers’ [106] Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed to enter a final judgment dismissing all claims against the Booksellers with prejudice. [SEE THE ORDER FOR DETAILS]. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 5/27/2011. (jth)

Linda Steinman Counsel for Barnes & Noble

Because of the confusion Larry began emailing counsel to all parties in Parisi v Sinclair informing them of his intent to file a Motion for Reconsideration . Needless to say Segal (Amazon.com Counsel) began speaking for ALL Bookseller defendants stating ALL bookseller defendants opposed any Motions for Reconsideration from any party on any ground. DC Local Rules require that the parties confer with each other if any party opposes the other parties planned Motion. Larry never in a million years thought that he would ever be in agreement with Parisi counsel Richard Oparil on anything, but clearly agrees the Honorable Judge Leon should reconsider his May 27, 2011 ORDER granting the bookseller defendant’s Joint Motion for Certification. While Counsel for Amazon.com (Matthew Segal) and Counsel for Barnes & Noble (Linda Steinman (Left)) have stated they oppose any Motion for Reconsideration defendant Books-A-Million has not yet responded, and as Larry informed Mr. Segal, until he is listed on the docket as counsel for all Bookseller Defendants Larry would need to hear from each counsel of record.

In the meantime it appears Mr. Oparil (Left) had planned to follow his usual course by waiting until the last day to file his opposition, this is clear by the fact that Oparil filed yet another 90 something pages in a Motion for Reconsideration of not only Judge Leon’s May 27, 2011 ORDER but also of Judge Leon’s March 31, 2011 ORDER as it relates to granting Defendant Amazon.com’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion filed by Oparil however seems to want to change the claims of Parisi yet a third time as to what Controlling Law the DC Court should apply. In the late summer last year Parisi argued in opposing Rense’s Motion to Dismiss that DC Law should apply, claiming that Dan Parisi at all times was a citizen of the District of Columbia when Rense argued NJ Law should be applied. Now Parisi wants the Court to apply Pennsylvania Law claiming that Parisi at the time of the injury was a resident of Pennsylvania. Based on the sworn affidavits of both Richard Oparil and Daniel Parisi as to his place of residence we simply cannot see Judge Leon accepting the latest argument that Pennsylvania law should apply.

U.S. District Court
District of Columbia
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered by Oparil, Richard on 6/1/2011 at 6:58 PM and filed on 6/1/2011

Case Name: PARISI et al v. SINCLAIR et al
Case Number: 1:10-cv-00897-RJL
Filer: DANIEL PARISI
  WHITEHOUSE.COM INC.
  WHITEHOUSE NETWORK LLC
  WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS INC.
Document Number: 112
   

Docket Text:
MOTION for Reconsideration re [103] Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, [102] Memorandum & Opinion, [111] Order on Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b), Order on Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) and for Leave to File A Supplemental Complaint by DANIEL PARISI, WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS INC., WHITEHOUSE NETWORK LLC, WHITEHOUSE.COM INC. (Attachments: # (1) Memorandum in Support, # (2) Exhibit 1 [Declaration], # (3) Exhibit 2, # (4) Exhibit 3, # (5) Exhibit 4, # (6) Exhibit 5, # (7) Exhibit 6, # (8) Text of Proposed Order)(Oparil, Richard)

It should be made clear that Larry does not oppose Judge Leon’s March 31, 2011 ORDER granting Bookseller defendants motion to dismiss and summary judgment, he does however oppose the booksellers motion for Certification of that March 31, 2011 finding as it would prejudice both Sinclair & Rense in allowing the booksellers to proceed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals before the District Court rules on the still pending Motions to Dismiss by Sinclair and Rense.

The fact that the Courts ORDER dated May 27, 2011 was signed prior to the time provided each party to file an opposition in Larry’s mind is grounds for Reconsideration. Matthew Segal telling all parties

So there is no ambiguity, the three booksellers respectfully oppose reconsideration by each of the parties and on each of the grounds stated.  These arguments were presented to and considered by the Court before the ruling was issued. 

Thank you,

Matt

is somewhat outrageous considering the ORDER was signed five days before the first opposition to the booksellers motion was even filed. Not to mention Mr. Segal’s claiming any opposition would be due by June 1, 2011 when the Rules set the due date at June 6, 2011. Larry’s opposition wasn’t filed until 8:26 PM May 31, 2011. Just when you thought things could not get any crazier, “wotcha!”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SHARE THIS