Opposition Brief — Viehweg v. Mello
Supreme Court brief2000
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. 99-1572
See,
ae ——
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
w
WILLIAM H. VIEHWEG,
Petitioner,
SUSAN H. MELLO,
Respondent.
On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Eighth Circuit
¢
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
¢
Noce & Buck ey, L.L.C. SusAN H. MELLo
GERARD T. Noce 7751 Carondelet, Suite 403
Counsel of Record St. Louis, MO 63105
515 Olive Street, Suite 800 Phone: (314) 721-7521
St. Louis, MO 63101-1839 — Fax: (314) 863-7779
Phone: (314) 621-3434
Fax: (314) 621-3485
Counsel for Respondent
Respondent Pro Per
COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO., (800) 225-6964
OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether an attorney who has been duly admitted to
practice before the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri and the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals violates 28 U.S.C. § 1654 by entering her
appearance as co-counsel for herself to cover the unin-
sured punitive damages when she is also simultaneously
represented by retained counsel that was hired by her
professional liability insurance carrier and where no
harm has been alleged for such entry, as only one Motion
for Summary Judgment and the appellate brief were sub-
mitted on her behalf as a party.
il
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTION PRRERPGS IM 8 6:4006d os codeine cede ckass: i
TABLE OF COINTROGI 4 4icce usecase esses sae eases ii
TABLE OF AUTEURS $4d40056565 cuca eee seanees lil
SEATEDGENE OF} Siem GPR soc ce ici rs es cedievaievs 1
REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT............. 5
CONCLUSION, .. ..60d5s50ee eee 10
lil
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Brasier v. Jeary, 256 F.2d 474 (8th Cir. 1958), cert.
ib vse as ceased saw ands 6, 7
Easley v. American Family Mutual Ins., Co., 847
eee ne Gee. CE. A. PPRZ)....... 2 ceca ee cae yes 8
Herron v. Southern Pacific Co., 51 S.Ct. 383 (1931)..... 6
Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469 (8th Cir. 1994)........ 7
Lee v. Alabama, 406 F.2d 466 (5th Cir. 1968), cert.
eee, ee AE, Bree CAG) .n. cc ccc cece ccces. 6
Overholser v. DeMarcos, 149 F.2d 23 (D.C. Cir.
1945), cert. denied, 65 S.Ct. 1579 (1945) ............. fj
Reed v. Labor and Industrial Relations Committee, 789
ee |) rr 9
U.S. v. Agofsky, 20 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 1994) ........... 7
U.S. v. Conder, 423 F.2d 904 (6th Cir. 1970), cert.
A Se ee ar 6
U.S. v. Dellinger, 472 F.2d 340 (7th Cir. 1972), cert.
Oe OO CUTE nc eens bvecescseesencs 7
U.S. v. Klee, 494 F.2d 394 (9th Cir. 1974), cert.
a , e 7
U.S. v. Swinton, 400 F. Supp. 805 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) ..... 6
Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1 (Wheat) (1825) ........ 8
Wayne v. Benson, 89 F.3d 530 (8th Cir. 1996).......... 7
SraTuTes CITED
Ns oes sk cacwead chek aad ken sau dwn's 5,9
iV
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued
Page
Court Rutes Citep
Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) ........... 9
Supreme Court Rute 10(a) .. 2.2.66. ice ec ccnacnces 5
Supreme Court Rate 14(1Ma). o.oo ois ccc ce caves 9
supreme Court Rute 84(1K8) . 6. 6.66. ci cece aes Y
i
:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In 1997, William H. Viehweg, Petitioner, filed a claim
against Susan H. Mello, Respondent, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (here-
inafter “Eastern District”) contending that she breached a
duty to him where, in compliance with her duty under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, she informed him that
she would not be able to file a lawsuit on his behalf. The
claim was turned over to Ms. Mello’s professional lia-
bility carrier who selected the Moser & Marsalek law firm
to represent her insurable interests. Where Missouri law
provides that it is against public policy for an insurance
company to provide coverage to insure against punitive
damages claims, in conjunction with insurance defense
counsel, in April, 1997, Ms. Mello entered her appearance
as co-counsel with the Moser & Marsalek law firm. Mr.
Viehweg challenged her entry, which was denied and
thereafter he did not include the challenge in the appeal.
Although Ms. Mello entered her appearance as co-
counsel with the law firm of Moser & Marsalek, most of
the filings were done in joint names, including the
Motion for Summary Judgment. The only duplicitous
motion that was filed occurred in September, 1997, when
Moser & Marsalek filed a Motion to Compel, where Ms.
Mello had already submitted one in July, 1997. Only one
such motion was taken up, however, and only one set of
orders was issued.
In December, 1999, where there were issues as to
upcoming depositions and the discovery deadline had
passed, the court ordered a status conference to address
these and other issues. At that conference, when Mr.
Viehweg again brought up the issue of Ms. Mello’s entry
of appearance, he was told by the court that Ms. Mello
had full rights to represent herself. Specifically, Judge
Mummert stated:
Ms. Mello has the right, Mr. Viehweg, to repre-
sent herself. She has a right to represent herself
whether she’s a lawyer or not a lawyer, but the
fact that she is a lawyer doesn’t preclude her
from being an attorney . . . So, your Motion to
strike her as an attorney and all the frivolous
motions you’ve filed about that, and all the
cases, denied.
(Viehweg’s Petition App. at A4- Pre-trial Status Confer-
ence (emphasis added)).
At that conference, the court also entered protective
orders for Ms. Mello that Mr. Viehweg not contact her
directly.
During the district court proceedings, Mr. Viehweg
was allowed to conduct all necessary discovery. His inter-
rogatories were answered by Ms. Mello, without having
to file a Motion to Compel. Although Ms. Mello requested
and per the judge’s order she was allowed police protec-
tion and a Commissioner at her deposition, Mr. Viehweg
was given a full opportunity to depose Ms. Mello, which
was the only deposition taken in this case.
Prior to her deposition, Ms. Mello jointly filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment with co-counsel from the
law firm of Moser & Marsalek in November, 1997. In
December, 1997, while awaiting Mr. Viehweg’s Response
to her Motion for Summary Judgment, the law firm of
Moser & Marsalek was replaced by the law firm of
eee ee
Brinker & Doyen, whose entry of appearance was also
attacked by Mr. Viehweg. Once Mr. Viehweg had filed his
Response, Ms. Mello and Brinker & Doyen jointly filed a
Reply and, in May, 1998, the court granted summary
judgment. (Viehweg’s Petition App. at A23 — A39- District
Court’s Judgment and Order).
When Mr. Viehweg appealed, he did not include any
mention of the prior orders and instead appealed only the
summary judgment order. Accordingly, he did not
include the orders denying his motions to disqualify Ms.
Mello as co-counsel in the Notice of Appeal.
After Ms. Mello filed her entry of appearance in the
Eighth Circuit, Mr. Viehweg also attacked it. The Eighth
Circuit denied his motions on the same. Mr. Viehweg
petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus and/or
prohibition, No. 98-467, which was denied. (Viehweg’s
Petition App. at A8- Denial of Prior Petition).
In November, 1998, the law firm of Brinker & Doyen
filed a brief with the Eighth Circuit. Where the brief
contained various misstatements and Ms. Mello was
granted leave to file a replacement brief in order to
correct these errors, she did so the same week as the
initial brief. Mr. Viehweg in doing his Reply Brief replied
only to the replacement brief. Ms. Mello’s submissions in
her name alone were made only until new insurance co-
counsel, Noce & Buckley, entered their appearance in
December, 1998.
The appeal was decided without oral arguments and
on October 18, 1999, the Eighth Circuit, in a per curiam,
unpublished opinion sustained the determination of the
district court that summary judgment was proper. (Vieh-
weg’s Petition Al- Eighth Circuit Opinion).
In the meantime, Mr. Viehweg also filed a St. Louis
County Circuit Court action to attack Ms. Mello’s entry in
the federal courts which was denied and appealed. Mr.
Viehweg also attacked Ms. Mello’s entry in the Missouri
Court of Appeals. The Missouri Court of Appeals, apply-
ing Missouri law, held the entry was proper, which Mr.
Viehweg did not appeal.
Mr. Viehweg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari does not
involve the underlying claim, the summary judgment
ruling, or the Eighth Circuit decision sustaining it. Peti-
tioner is apparently seeking review by this Court only of
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ denial of Petitioner’s
motions to disqualify Respondent, a duly admitted attor-
ney to the Eastern District and Eighth Circuit bars, from
acting as co-counsel for herself where Mr. Viehweg
sought punitive damages, which, under Missouri public
policy, are not insurable.
In none of Mr. Viehweg’s previous motions regarding
Ms. Mello’s entry of appearance has he alleged or shown
any harm. (Viehweg’s Petition App. at Al3 — A19 (setting
forth one example of his numerous motions regarding
this issue)). In point of fact, the Motion for Summary
Judgment was jointly filed in one name and there was
only one appellate brief (with her replacement brief sub-
mitted the same week as the initial brief). He filed only
one reply brief. There was no denial of any due process
or discovery rights suffered by Mr. Viehweg.
¢
REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT
Mr. Viehweg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari should
be denied. The issue presented in Mr. Viehweg’s Petition,
whether Ms. Mello’s entry of appearance as co-counsel
(in order to protect her personal and uninsurable inter-
ests where Mr. Viehweg sought punitive damages not
covered by her professional liability policy) violates 28
U.S.C. § 1654, does not present any error or involve a
conflict between prior Eighth Circuit rulings.
The issue presented by Mr. Viehweg does not involve
any conflict between the appellate circuit courts or
involve a ruling by the lower courts that, “has so far
departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceedings .. . as to call for an exercise of this Court’s
supervisory power...” Supreme Court Rule 10(a).
The cases cited by him instead demonstrate no viola-
tion of 28 U.S.C. § 1654 occurred in the lower courts and
no error was committed by these lower courts.
Additionally, Mr. Viehweg has never alleged or
stated and cannot show any harm occurred as a result of
Ms. Mello’s entry of appearance. This issue was not even
properly presented to the Eighth Circuit where it was
never included in Mr. Viehweg’s Notice of Appeal.
Mr. Viehweg’s assertion that Ms. Mello’s joint entry
of appearance with retained co-counsel violates 28 U.S.C.
§ 1654 is completely unfounded and unsupported by the
case law. Section 1654 states:
In all courts of the United States the parties may
plead and conduct their own cases personally or
by counsel as, by the rules of such courts,
respectively, are permitted to manage and con-
duct their cases therein.
Id.
The courts that have addressed the question have
held that a party representing themselves while also
being represented by retained counsel is permissible.
Although it may not be an absolute right, the statute and
case law have left this determination to the sound discre-
tion of the judge overseeing the proceeding. Mr. Viehweg
has not alleged or shown any abuse of that discretion.
This principle has been recognized by the Eighth
Circuit in Brasier v. Jeary, 256 F.2d 474 (8th Cir. 1958), cert.
denied, 79 S.Ct. 97 (1958), where it held that district courts
have broad control over its own proceedings and that
federal judges have the “power and responsibility . . . to
govern and control” the conduct of the parties and the
proceedings before them. Id. at 477 (citing Herron v. South-
ern Pacific Co., 51 S.Ct. 383, 384 (1931)). Specifically
addressing the power of federal judges to allow a litigant
to proceed pro se and also be represented by counsel, the
Eighth Circuit held such a decision “comes clearly within
the discretionary power of a trial judge to control and
regulate the orderly procedure of the trial.” Id. (citations
omitted). As it stated, the decision:
rests squarely with the trial judge, who bears
the responsibility for the orderly conduct of the
trial, and an appellate court should not interfere
with the trial court’s exercise of that discretion.
Id. at 478. See also U.S. v. Swinton, 400 F. Supp. 805
(S.D.N.Y. 1975) (citing Lee v. Alabama, 406 F.2d 466 (5th
Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 89 S.Ct. 1787 (1969); U.S. v. Conder,
423 F.2d 904, 908 (6th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 91 S.Ct. 357
(1970); U.S. v. Dellinger, 472 F.2d 340 (7th Cir. 1972), cert.
denied, 93 S.Ct. 1443 (1973); U.S. v. Klee, 494 F.2d 394 (9th
Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 95 S.Ct. 62 (1974); and, Overholser v.
DeMarcos, 149 F.2d 23 (D.C. Cir. 1945), cert. denied, 65 S.Ct.
1579 (1945)).
Indeed, Mr. Viehweg’s own cases confirm the right of
the courts to allow simultaneous pro se and counsel
representation with multiple submissions. While Mr.
Viehweg cited Brasier v. Jeary, 256 F.2d 474 (8th Cir. 1958),
cert. denied, 79 S.Ct. 97 (1958); U.S. v. Agofsky, 20 F.3d 866
(8th Cir. 1994); Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469 (8th Cir.
1994); and Wayne v. Benson, 89 F.3d 530 (8th Cir. 1996),
they do not support his position. Rather, in Hoggard,
supra, although the court cited to a general court policy
not to consider pro se filings when these litigants are also
represented by counsel, the court noted that this is not a
hard and fast rule. The Eighth Circuit there “permitted
Hoggard to file a pro se supplemental brief” and “gratu-
itously considered [it] . . . ” even though he was also
represented by counsel. Id. (citations omitted). Similarly,
in Wayne, the Eighth Circuit again allowed a pro se party
to submit a brief while also being representing by coun-
sel. The court stated, “Wayne also submitted a pro se
brief along with the brief submitted by his appointed
counsel in his appeal to this court. This court granted
leave to file this brief, although generally we do not... ”
Id. (citations omitted).
Here, there is no error or harm. Instead, there was
only one, jointly submitted Motion for Summary Jucdg-
ment in the district court and only one replacement brief
was filed by Ms. Mello in the Eighth Circuit, which was
by leave of the court. Mr. Viehweg filed only one Reply
brief to the replacement brief. Mr. Viehweg did not con-
tend and cannot show that he was in any way prejudiced
by the replacement brief.
Mr. Viehweg’s First Amended Complaint alleged,
inter alia, intentional torts and sought punitive damages,
which, if damages were awarded on these claims, would
not be covered under Ms. Mello’s insurance policy. Mis-
souri courts have specifically held that such damages
cannot be covered by liability insurance as contrary to
public policy. Easley v. American Familiy Mutual Ins., Co.,
847 S.W.2d 811, 811 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992) (citations omit-
ted). Accordingly, this case essentially involved two, dis-
tinct interests - Ms. Mello’s insured interest and her
uninsured interest. As such, the lower courts correctly
permitted Ms. Mello to enter as co-counsel, particularly
to properly protect against any damage awards that
would not be covered by her insurance carrier.
While Mr. Viehweg’s petition also contains references
to Missouri case law as governing the procedural issue
regarding an attorney’s entry of appearance, this is con-
trary to the Erie doctrine and its subsequent line of cases.
See also Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1 (Wheat) (1825).
While these cases are not controlling on this issue, Mr.
Viehweg’s interpretation of them is not even correct.
In any event, as he seeks to ignore, a Missouri court
has already made a ruling against him. Mr. Viehweg took
this very issue to the Missouri Court of Appeals on the
same kind of entry by Ms. Mello. It ruled that even in the
Missouri Court of Appeals, under Missouri law, Ms.
Mello could properly enter her appearance as co-counsel
while also being represented by the counsel who was
hired by her professional liability insurance carrier. Mr.
Viehweg should be barred from reasserting this claim.
This is especially so where he did not appeal the Missouri
Court of Appeals’ decision.
Additionally, as Mr. Viehweg admits, Judge Mum-
mert also told him that Reed v. Labor and Industrial Rela-
tions Committee, 789 S.W. 19 (Mo. banc 1990) and the other
cases he has cited do not concern or involve a person’s
pro se rights. (Viehweg’s Petition App. at A4- Pre-trial
Status Conference). Instead, they concern only whether a
corporation, an artificial body, can represent itself, with
the court in Reed discussing, at length, the distinction
between a corporation and a human being, which the
court defines as a “natural person”. Id.
Mr. Viehweg’s other claims are baseless and not
properly before the Court. While Mr. Viehweg’s Petition
makes allusions to “constitutional” violations and a viola-
tion of Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), he did
not raise any such contentions with the district court and
omitted them from his question presented.!
' Mr. Viehweg did not properly submit these as questions
for review to the Court and, thus, they should not be
considered. Supreme Court Rule 14(1)(a) states, “[o]nly the
questions set out in the petition, or fairly included therein, will
be considered by the Court.” Additionally, Supreme Court Rule
14(1)(f) requires, “[‘]he constitutional provisions, treaties,
statutes, ordinances, and regulations involved in the case, set
out verbatim with appropriate citation.” Mr. Viehweg’s mention
of only 28 U.S.C. § 1654 and, therefore, any assertions or
arguments relating toany other matters included in his petition
should not be considered.
10
There is also no basis to any claim of interference
with any discovery. It was not raised in his brief to the
Eighth Circuit or in the Motion for Summary Judgment.
He did not file for any stay or relief under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56. Instead, Mr. Viehweg was given all
leeway for discovery, replies, and the benefit of every
doubt. As evidenced by the district court’s docket sheet,
(Brief in Opp. App. at Al-A28), Mr. Viehweg was given a
full opportunity to develop and uncover the facts in this
matter before summary judgment was correctly granted,
including a lengthy deposition of Ms. Mello.
*
CONCLUSION
As set forth above, Mr. Viehweg’s Petition for Writ of
Certiorari should be denied. Mr. Viehweg’s analysis of
the statute in question and case law is completely wrong
and he lacks a genuine and proper basis to assert his
claim. There is no harm alleged, nor did any in fact occur.
The issues mentioned in his petition are not properly
before the Court and, accordingly, these issues should not
be considered.
Respectfully submitted,
Noce & Buck ey, L.L.C.
GERARD T. Noce
Counsel of Record
515 Olive Street, Suite 800
St. Louis, MO 63101-1839
Phone: (314) 621-3434
Fax: (314) 621-3485
Attorney for Respondent
11
AND
SusAN H. MELLo
7751 Carondelet, Suite 403
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 721-7521
Fax: (314) 863-7779
Respondent Pro Per
App. 1
APPENDIX
TERMED APPEAL
FULCON TRCK 2
7 /98J
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of Missouri (Eastern)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 97-CV-211
Viehweg v. Mello
Assigned to: Mag Judge
Thomas C. Mummert
Demand: $75,000
Lead Docket: None
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-
Fraud
WILLIAM H. VIEHWEG
plaintiff
NV.
SUSAN H. MELLO
defendant
Filed: 02/10/97
Jury demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 370
Jurisdiction: Diversity
William H. Viehweg
[COR LD NTC] [PRO SE]
114 W. Second Street
Mt. Olive, IL 62069
217-999-5061
Joseph H. Mueller
[term 12/02/97]
314-421-5640 fax
[COR LD NTC]
Brian R. Plegge, Partner
[term 12/05/97]
314-421-5640 fax
[COR LD NTC]
MOSER AND
MARSALEK, P.C.
200 N. Broadway
Suite 700
St. Louis, MO 63102-2730
314-421-5364
FTS 421-5640
App. 2
Susan H. Mello
314-863-7779 fax
[COR LD NTC]
7751 Carondelet
Suite 403
St. Louis, MO 63105
314-721-7521
Scott C. Harper
[term 11/17/99]
314-863-8197 fax
[COR LD NTC]
BRINKER AND DOYEN
120 S. Central
Suite 700
Clayton, MO 63105
314-863-6311
FTS 863-8197
Gerard T. Noce
314-621-3485 fax
[COR LD NTC]
NOCE AND BUCKLEY
515 Olive Street
Suite 800
St. Louis, MO 63101-1839
314-621-3434
FTS 621-3485
GRACE E. FUENTES Grace E. Fuentes
movant [COR LD NTC]
[PRO SE]
LLOYD J. VASQUEZ, JR. 125 N. Main Street
movant ;
Suite 207
St. Charles, MO 63301
636-949-8677
FTS 925-2499
Lloyd J. Vasquez, Jr.
[COR LD NTC]
[PRO SE]
13100 Thornhill Drive
St. Louis, MO 63131
314-821-9050
2/10/97 1
2/10/97 2
2/10/97 3
2/10/97 4
2/18/97 5
3/3/97 6
3/14/97 7
3/17/97 8
App. 3
COMPLAINT; # Summons Issued: 1 #
Days to Respond: 20 # Counts; 3 # Con-
sents: 2; jury demand (aeh) [Entry date
02/11/97]
TRACK INFORMATION STATEMENT
filed by plaintiff William H. Viehweg;
track 2 preferred (aeh) [Entry date
02/11/97]
RECEIPT # s97-002640 in the amount of
$ 150.00 for civil filing fee (aeh) [Entry
date 02/11/97]
NOTICE OF PRIVATE PROCESS SERVER;
Process Server: Georgianna Lorenz (aeh)
[Entry date 02/11/97]
NOTICE OF PRIVATE PROCESS SERVER;
Process Server: Allied Intelligence
(replacing Georgianna Lorenz) (kms)
[Entry date 02/25/97]
RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon
defendant Susan H. Mello on 2/19/97 by
personal service by serving Susan Mello
with attached memo (jwj) [Entry date
03/04/97]
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello to
dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to
state a claim with memo of law in sup-
port of its motion to dismiss plaintiffs
complaint (jwj) [Entry date 03/17/97]
MOTION with exhibits 1-3 attached by
plaintiff William H. Viehweg for issuance
of alias summons, for order appointing
USMS as process server (Isd) [Entry date
03/18/97]
3/24/97 9
3/25/97 10
3/26/97 11
3/28/97 12
4/1/97 13
4/1/97 14
4/9/97 15
4/10/97 16
App. 4
ORDER by Mag Judge Thomas C. Mum-
mert denying motion for issuance of alias
summons as moot [8-1] (cc: all counsel)
(jwj) [Entry date 03/26/97]
MEMORANDUM by plaintiff William H.
Viehweg in opposition to motion to dis-
miss plaintiffs compliant for failure to
state a claim [7-1] (jwj) [Entry date
03/26/97)
RULE 16 ORDER by Mag Judge Thomas
C. Mummert; standard(2) track,; Rule 16
Conference 4/16/96 at 8:30 in Courtroom
8-C; joint scheduling plan ddl 4/9/97;
Magistrate Consent Due ddl 4/9/97 (cc:
all counsel) (llw) [Entry date 03/28/97]
REPLY in support by defendant Susan H.
Mello to response to motion to dismiss
plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a
claim [7-1] (llw) [Entry date 04/01/97]
AMENDED COMPLAINT by plntf Wil-
liam H. Viehweg; # Counts: 3 [1-1] (kms)
[Entry date 04/02/97]
FULL CONSENT has been rec’d by pintf
(2/18/97) & deft (4/1/97) (kms) [Entry
date 04/04/97]
JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING PLAN
by plaintiff William H. Viehweg, defen-
dant Susan H. Mello (llw) [Entry date
04/14/97]
ATTORNEY APPEARANCE as co-counsel
for defendant Susan H. Mello by Susan
H. Mello (llw) [Entry date 04/14/97]
4/14/97
4/16/97
4/16/97
4/17/97
4/22/97
4/25/97
17
18
19
20
21
yes
App. 5
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello to
dismiss amended complaint, for judg-
ment on the pleadings, to strike prayer
for damages w/Memo of Law in Support
(lw) [Entry date 04/15/97] [Edit date
04/15/97)
MINUTES: before Mag Judge Thomas C.
Mummert Rule 16 Conference held on
4/16/97 court reporter: Laura Wilder-
muth; proceedings started: 9:00 - ended:
9:20 (jwj) [Entry date 04/22/97]
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello
for order to unseal Court file number
4:92cv1243 w/memo in support. (jwj)
[Entry date 04/22/97]
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER by Mag
Judge Thomas C. Mummert; standard(2)
track; motion to add party ddl 6/2/97;
Disc completion ddl 11/3/97; non-disp
motion ddl 11/12/97; disp motion ddl
12/15/97; jury trial 7/20/98; pt comp ddl
7/1/98 (cc: all counsel) (jwj) [Entry date
04/22/97]
RESPONSE by plaintiff William H. Vieh-
weg to motion to dismiss amended com-
plaint [17-1], to motion for judgment on
the pleadings [17-2], to motion to strike
prayer for damages [17-3] (jwj) [Entry
date 04/30/97]
ORDER by Mag Judge Thomas C. Mum-
mert granting motion for order to unseal
Court file number 4:92cv1243 [19-1] inso-
far as the court file is unsealed for the
limited purpose of use by the parties in
4/30/97 23
5/1/97 24
5/9/97 25
5/9/97 26
5/14/97 27
6/10/97 28
App. 6
the instant action. All information con-
tained in the file remains confidential and
closed for other purposes. The parties
shall not disclose any information con-
taind in Case No. 4:92CV1243 to any
party or institution. (cc: all counsel) (Ign)
[Entry date 05/02/97]
NOTICE by counsel for defendant Susan
H. Mello; receipt of Document #19 in case
number 4:92CV1243 CAS (llw) [Entry
date 05/05/97]
NOTICE; FILE DUPLICATION RECEIPT
for file #4:92CV1243 CAS, entire file cop-
ied, picked up & signed for Access Cou-
rier (Ilw) [Entry date 05/05/97]
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello
for sanctions in connections with the fil-
ing of the amended complaint w/memo
in support attached (jwj) [Entry date
05/12/97}
REPLY by defendant Susan H. Mello to
response to motion to dismiss amended
complaint [17-1] (LEAVE TO FILE
GRANTED TCM) (jwj) [Entry date
05/12/97]
RESPONSE in opposition by plaintiff Wil-
liam H. Viehweg to motion for sanctions
in connections with the filing of the
amended complaint [25-1] (llw) [Entry
date 05/19/97]
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello to
strike Rule 11 motion of pltf and opposi-
tion w/attachments (kcm) [Entry date
06/11/97] [Edit date 06/11/97]
6/12/97
6/24/97
6/24/97
6/27/97
6/27/97
6/27/97
6/27/97
6/27/97
29
30
31
32
32
33
33
7/3/97 34
App. 7
GENERIC SCHEDULING EVENT;
Motion to Add party ddl satisfied (csg)
MOTION w/memo in sppt by plaintiff
William H. Viehweg for sanctions pre rule
11 (lsd) [Entry date 06/26/97]
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
for R26 protective order (lsd) [Entry date
06/26/97)
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello
for order to determin sufficiency on first
request for admission w/attached EXS
1-3 & Memo in Support (llw) [Entry date
06/30/97)
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello to
Strike pltfs motion for rule 26 protective
order (llw) [Entry date 06/30/97]
RESPONSE by defendant Susan H. Mello
to motion for R26 protective order [30-1]
w/attached EX A (llw) [Entry date
06/30/97)
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello to
strike rule 11 motion (llw) [Entry date
06/30/97]
RESPONSE by defendant Susan H. Mello
to motion for sanctions per rule 11 [29-1]
w/attached EX A (llw) [Entry date
06/30/97]
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello to
compel production w/attached memo in
support or her motion (jwj) [Entry date
07/07/97)
7/9/97 35
7/9/97 36
7/11/97
7/16/97
7/16/97
7/23/97
7/23/97
37
38
38
39
39
App. 8
MOTION. by defendant Susan H. Mello to
compel answers to first set of interrogato-
riestached memo in support and attached
exhibits A-D (jwj) [Entry date 07/10/97]
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
for protective order sanctioning defen-
dant, for order holding discovery in abey-
ance, and to for appointment of counsel
w/attached exhibits 1-14 (jwj) [Entry date
07/10/97)
MOTION with memo in sppt by defen-
dant Susan H. Mello to compel, for sanc-
tions for failure to comply with 26(a) (2)
experts (Isd) [Entry date 07/15/97]
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello to
strike Pltf’s motion for protective order,
sanctioning deft, holsing desivoery in
abeyance and apptg. counsel for pltf.
(Isd) [Entry date 07/21/97]
RESPONSE by defendant Susan H. Mello
to motion for protective order sanctioning
defendant [36-1], to motion for order
holding discovery in abeyance [36-2], to
motion for appointment of counsel [36-3],
to motion to compel answers to first set
of interrogatories [35-1] (lsd) [Entry date
07/21/97]
REPLY by plaintiff William H. Viehweg to
response to motion for protective order
sanctioning defendant [36-1] w/attached
memo to clerk. (jwj)
RESPONSE by plaintiff William H. Vieh-
weg to motion for protective order sanc-
tioning defendant [36-1] (jwj) [Entry date
07/24/97]
7/31/97
40
8/8/97 41
9/4/97 42
9/8/97 43
9/11/97
¥-
9/15/97
9/18/97
9/25/97
44
45
46
47
App. 9
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello
for order for rule 35 exam w/attached
memo in support and exhibits A-B (jwj)
[Entry date 08/04/97]
RESPONSE by plaintiff William H. Vieh-
weg to motion for order for rule 35 exam
[40-1] (jwj) [Entry date 08/11/97]
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
for order for revocation of Case Manage-
ment Order of 4/17/97 ae) [Entry date
09/09/97]
RESPONSE by defendant Susan H. Mello
to motion for order for revocation of Case
Management Order of 4/17/97 [42-1]
(Isd) [Entry date 09/09/97]
REPLY by plaintiff William H. Viehweg to
response to motion for order for revoca-
tion of Case Management Order of
4/17/97 [42-1] (jwj) [Entry date
09/12/97]
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello
for leave to delay filing of expert wit-
nesse report (Isd) [Entry date 09/25/97]
RESPONSE by plaintiff William H. Vieh-
weg to motion for leave to delay filing of
expert witnesse report [45-1] (Isd) [Entry
date 09/25/97] —
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
to disqualify defendant Susan H. Mello’s
counsel, the law firm of Moser and Mar-
salek, P.C. with attached exhibits 1-7 and
memo of law in support (kks) [Entry date
09/30/97)
App. 10
9/30/97 48 MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello
for protective order (Isd) [Entry date
10/03/97)
9/30/97 49 RESPONSE by defendant Susan H. Mello
to motion to disqualify defendant Susan
H. Mello’s counsel, the law firm of Moser
and Marsalek, P.C. [47-1] (Isd) [Entry date
10/03/97]
9/30/97 49 MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello
for Rule 11 sanctions (llw) [Entry date
10/08/97} ”
10/1/97 ‘50 MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
for protective order, & to quash dft’s
notice of deposition w/Memo in Support
(llw) [Entry date 10/08/97]
10/7/97 51 MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello to
compel (llw) [Entry date 10/08/97]
10/7/97 52 MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello to
quash, and for protective order EX A-B,
pitfs EX 1, 2 (llw) [Entry date 10/08/97]
10/7/97 53 RESPONSE in Opposition by plaintiff
William H. Viehweg to motion for protec-
tive order [48-1] requesting dismissal of
the motion (llw) [Entry date 10/08/97]
10/7/97 54 REPLY by plaintiff William H. Viehweg to
response to motion to disqualify defen-
dant Susan H. Mello’s counsel, the law
firm of Moser and Marsalek, P.C. [47-1]
(lw) [Entry date 10/08/97]
10/7/97 55 RESPONSE by plaintiff William H. Vieh-
weg to motion for Rule 11 sanctions
[49-1] (llw) [Entry date 10/08/97}
Bi ae ah a
10/8/97
10/8/97
10/8/97
10/8/97
10/8/97
10/10/97 58
10/10/97 59
56
‘57
App. 11
ORDER by Mag Judge Thomas C. Mum-
mert denying motion for protective order
[50-1], denying motion to quash dft’s
notice of deposition [50-2], denying
motion to disqualify defendant Susan H.
Mello’s counsel, the law firm of Moser
and Marsalek, P.C. [47-1] (cc: all counsel)
(lw) [Entry date 10/10/97]
ORDER by Mag Judge Thomas C. Mum-
mert denying as moot the motion to dis-
miss plaintiffs compliant for failure to
state a claim [7-1] (cc: all counsel) (lw)
[Entry date 10-10-97]
MOTION by plaintiff to dismiss (lsd)
[Entry date 10/23/97] (Edit date
10/23/97]
RESPONSE by plaintiff William H. Vieh-
weg to motion to quash [52-1], to motion
for protective order [52-2] (response is
included in pleading “Plaintiff’s motion
to dismiss or in the alternative respl. to
motion to quahs & for protective order”
(Isd) [Entry date 10/23/97]
RESPONSE (Motion to dismiss motion to
compel) by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
to motion to compel [51-1] (Isd) [Entry
date 10/23/97]
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
for protective order, and for hearing with
oral testimony regarding pltf’s deposition
(llw) [Entry date 10/14/97]
Supplemental MOTION by plaintiff Wil-
liam H. Viehweg to quash Notice of
Deposition, and for protective order
10/14/97
10/15/97
10/15/97
10/15/97
10/15/97
10/15/97
10/15/97
10/24/97
10/31/97
60
61
62
63
64
65
65
66
67
App. 12
w/attached EXS A-B (llw) [Entry date
10/14/97]
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello
for sanctions per Rule 37 w/attached
Memo in Support & EXS A & 1-2 (Ilw)
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
to quash subpoena of Jack Vasquez (lsd)
[Entry date 10/23/97]
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
to quash subpoena dir. to Thos. Croft
(Isd) [Entry date 10/23/97]
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
to quash subpoena dir. to Grace Fuentes
(Isd) [Entry date 10/23/97]
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
to quash deft’s entry of appearance (lsd)
[Entry date 10/23/97]
RESPONSE by plaintiff William H. Vieh-
weg to supplemental motion to quash
notice of deposition and for protective
order [52-1] (Isd) [Entry date 10/23/97]
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
for hearing/oral argument (lsd) [Entry
date 10/23/97}
RESPONSE by plaintiff William H. Vieh-
weg to motion for sanctions per Rule 37
[60-1] (Isd) (Entry date 10/27/97]
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
for Rule 37 order for sanctions for failure
to appear at deposition & compelling
dft’s presence at future deposition
w/Memo of Law in Support (liw) [Entry
date 11/03/97]
11/3/97
11/5/97
11/6/97
11/6/97
11/7/97
11/10/97 73
11/10/97 74
68
69
70
71
72
App. 13
RESPONSE by defendant Susan H. Mello
to motion for Rule 37-order for sanctions
for failure to appear at deposition & com-
pelling dft’s presence at future deposition
[67-1] (Isd) [Entry date 11/06/97]
REPLY by plaintiff William H. Viehweg to
response to motion for Rule 37 order for
sanctions for failure to appear at deposi-
tion & compelling dft’s presence at future
deposition [67-1] (Isd) [Entry date
11/06/97}
JOINT MOTION w/memo in sppt by
movant Grace E. Fuentes, movant Lloyd
J. Vasquez Jr. to quash subpoenas (lsd)
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello
for summary judgment w/Memo in Sup-
port, affidavit of Susan Mello, and EXS
A-M (llw) [Entry date 11/07/97]
AMENDED JOINT MOTION by movant
Grace E. Fuentes, movant Lloyd J. Vas-
quez Jr. to quash subpoenas served on the
movants (llw)
ORDER by Mag Judge Thomas C. Mum-
mert setting hearing on Motion for R26
protective order [30-1] 2:00 11/17/97 to
be held in the Courtroom (cc: aal counsel)
(1lw)
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
for sanctions quashing four subpoenas,
and for other relief for CMO & Rule vio-
lations w/Memo in support & EXS 1-9
(llw) [Entry date 11/12/97] [Edit date
11/12/97]
11/10/97
11/12/97
11/13/97
11/17/97
11/18/97
75
76
77
78
79
App. 14
RESPONSE in opposition by defendant
Susan H. Mello to motion to quash sub-
poenas served on the movants [72-1], to
motion to quash subpoenas [70-1]
w/attached EXS A-F (llw) [Entry date
11/12/97]
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
for sanctions quashing service of inter-
rogatories for CMO violations, and for
protective order Per Rule 26 w/attached
EX 1 (llw) [Entry date 11/14/97]
RESPONSE in opposition by defendant
Susan H. Mello to motion for sanctions
quashing four subpoenas [74-1] (llw)
[Entry date 11/14/97] |
ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defen-
dant Sustn H. Mello by Joseph H. Mueller
(jwj) [Entry date 11/18/97]
MINUTES: before Mag Judge Thomas C.
Mummert denying motion for sanctions
quashing four subpoenas [74-1], denying
motion for sanctions quashing service of
interrogatories for CMO violations [76-1],
denying motion for Rule 37 order for
sanctions for failure to appear at deposi-
tion & compelling dft's presence at future
deposition [67-1], denying motion for
sanctions per Rule 37 [60-1], denying
motion for Rule 11 sanctions [49-1], deny-
ing motion to strike Pitf’s motion for pro-
tective order, sanctioning deft, holsing
desivoery in abeyance and apptg. counsel
for pltf. [38-1], denying motion for sanc-
tions for failure to comply with 26(A) (2)
experts [37-2], denying motion for
11/25/97 80
12/2/97 -
12/2/97 81
App. 15
appointment of counsel [36-3], «denying
motion to strike rule 11 motion [33-1],
denying motion to strike pltfs motion for
rule 26 protective order [32-1], denying
motion for sanctions pre rule 11 [29-1],
denying motion to strike Rule 11 motion
of pltf and opposition [28-1], denying
motion for sanctions in connections with
the filing of the amended complaint [25-1]
order to issue, Parties ordered to stop
filing frivolous motoins or risk imposition
of sanctions, court reporter: Idreon; pro-
ceedings started: 2:00 - ended: 2:40 (jwj)
MOTION by Joseph H. Mueller, attorney
for defendant Susan H. Mello to with-
draw as her attorney (glf) [Entr date
12/03/97]
RULED DOCUMENT by Mag Judge
Thomas C. Mummert granting motion to
withdraw as her attorney [80-1] attorney
Joseph H. Mueller for Susan H. Mello (cc:
all counsel) (glf) [Entry date 12/03/97]
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: by Mag
Judge Thomas C. Mummert denying
motion for R26 protective order [30-1],
denying motion for protective order sanc-
tioning defendant [36-1], denying motion
for order holding discovery in abeyance
[36-2], denying motion for appointment
of counsel [36-3], denying motion for
order for revocation of Case Management
Order of 4/17/97 }42-1], denying motion
to disqualify defendant Susan H. Mello’s
counsel, the law firm of Moser and Mar-
salek, P.C. [47-1], denying motion to dis-
miss [0-1], denying motion for protective
12/5/97 82
12/5/97 -
App. 16
order [58-1], denying motion for hearing
with oral testimony [58-2], denying
motion to quash subpoena of Jack Vas-
quez [61-1] denying motion to quash sub-
poena dir, to Thos. Croft [62-1], denying
motion to Quash subpoena dir, to Grace
Fuentes [63-1], denying motion to quash
deft’s entry of appearance [64-1], denying
motion for hearing/oral argument [65-1],
denying motion for protective order Per
Rule 26 [76-2], denying motion to quash
subpoenas served on the movants [72-1],
denying motion to quash subpoenas
[70-1], granting in part and denying in
part motion for order to determine suffi-
ciency on first request for admission
[31-1], denying motion to compel answers
to first set of interrogatories [35-1], deny-
ing motion for protective order [48-1],
denying motion to quash [52-1], denying
motion for protective order [52-2], deny-
ing motion to quash Notice of Deposition
[59-1], granting motion for leave to delay
filing of expert witnesse report [45-1],
denying motion to compel [51-1] (cc: all
counsel) (glf) [Entry date 12/03/97]
MOTION by counsel for defendant Susan
H. Mello to withdraw Brian Plegge as
attorney of record (llw) [Entry date
12/09/97}
RULED DOCUMENT by Mag Judge
Thomas C. Mummert granting motion to
withdraw Brian Plegge as attorney of
record [82-1] & withdrawing attorney
Brian R. Plegge for Susan H. Mello
12/5/97 83
12/12/97
12/12/97
12/12/97
12/15/97
12/15/97
84
85
86
87
App. 17
LEAVE GRANTED (cc: all counsel) (llw)
[Entry date 12/09/97]
ORDER by Mag Judge Thomas C. Mum-
mert The Court on ots own motion hereby
orders that all depositions in this case,
including those of the parties are to be
completed on or before 1/30/98 at 5:00
‘pm in the afternoon. The conditions for
the parties depositions delineated during
the 11/17/97 motion hearing remain in
full force & effect (cc: all counsel) (llw)
[Entry date 12/09/97]
TAPE ORDER - for proceedings of
Motion Hearing held 11/17/97, recorded
by Court Reporter L. Dreon/ECRO, as
ordered by Connie Payne Brinker Doyen
(Isd)
ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defen-
dant Susan H. Mello by Scott C. Harper of
the fir of Brinker & Doyen (Isd) [Entry
date 12/15/97]
RECEIPT # s98-001999 in the amount of
$20.50 for photocopies and copy of audio
tape of hrg of 11/17/97 (lsd) [Entry date
12/15/97]
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello to
dismiss for lack of Subject Matter jurisdic-
tion w/ Memorandum in Support and
Exhibits A-B3 attached (CMA) [Entry date
12/16/97]
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
to strike defendants motion and mem-
orandum to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction (jwj) [Entry date
12/19/97]
12/15/97 -
12/17/97 88
1/8/98 89
1/8/98 90
1/8/98 90
1/12/98 91
1/12/98 92
App. 18
GENERIC SCHEDULING EVENT; Dis-
covery Completion ddl satisfied; Disposi-
tive Motion ddl satisfied; Non-disp
Motion ddl satisfied (csg) [Entry date
01/08/98}
ORDER by Mag Judge Thomas C. Mum-
mert denying motion to strike defendants
motion and memorandum to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction [87-1]
(cc: all counsel) (jwj) [Entry date
12/19/97]
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello to
dismiss, and to strike based on pltf’s
December 1997 answers to interrogatories
w/attached EXS A-D (llw) [Entry date
01/09/98]
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello
for order sealing dft’s deposition tran-
scrippt, videotape deposition w/Memo in
Support attached (llw) [Entry date
01/09/98] [Edit date 01/14/98]
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello
for order sealing pltfs response to dft’s
motion for summary jgm w/Memo in
Support (llw) [Entry date 01/14/98] [Edit
date 01/14/98]
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
to quash, to strike deft’s expert witness
report with attachments (jwj) [Entry date
01/13/98]
RESPONSE by plaintiff William H. Vieh-
weg to motion for order sealing dft’s
deposition transcrippt, videotape deposi-
tion [90-1] (jwj) [Entry date 01/13/98]
[Edit date 01/14/98]
1/12/98
1/13/98
1/13/98
1/13/98
1/14/98
1/16/98
1/21/98
1/21/98
92
93
94
94
“95
App. 19
RESPONSE by plaintiff William H. Vieh-
weg to motion for order sealing pltfs
response to dft’s motion for summary jgm
[90-1] (llw) [Entry date 01/14/98] [Edit
date 01/14/98] -
RULED DOCUMENT by Mag Judge
Thomas C. Mummert granting motion for
order sealing dft’s deposition transcrippt,
videotape deposition [90-1]; LEAVE TO
FILE UNDER SEAL GRANTED (cc: all
counsel) (Ilw) [Entry date 01/14/98]
TRANSCRIPT filed from deposition of
Susan Mello of 12/30/97; court reporter:
Richard Schroeder (llw) [Entry date
01/14/98]
SEALED DOCUMENT by defendant
Susan H. Mello [94-1] (llw) [Entry date
01/14/98]
RESPONSE by plaintiff William H. Vieh-
weg to motion for summary judgment
[71-1] with attached affidavit of William
‘—H. Viehwig and deposition (jwj) [Entry
96
97
98
date 01/15/98]
RESPONSE by defendant Susan H. Mello
to motion to quash [91-1], to motion to
strike deft’s expert witness report [91-2]
w/Attached EXS A-E (llw) [Entry date
01/20/98}
REPLY by defendant Susan H. Mello to
response to motion for summary judg-
ment [71-1] th attached exhibits and aff
(Isd) [Entry date 01/22/98]
AFFIDAVIT of Susan Mello in support of
Reply Memo in sppt of mtn for Summary
1/22/98 99
1/26/98 -
2/3/98 100
2/11/98 101
2/17/98 102
3/30/98 103
3/31/98 104
App. 20
judgment re [97-1] (Isd) [Entry date
01/22/98]
REPLY by plaintiff William H. Viehweg to
response to motion to quash [91-1],
motion to strike deft’s expert witness
report [91-2] (Isd) [Entry date 01/23/98]
SUPPLEMENTAL exhibit to affidavit by
defendant Susan H. Mello re transcript
transcript [94-1] (llw) [Entry date
01/28/98}
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
for leave to file second amended com-
plaint with memo in support and
attached proposed complaint (jwj) [Entry
date 02/04/98] 3
RESPONSE by defendant Susan H. Mello
to motion for leave to file second
amended complaint [100-1] (jwj) [Entry
date 02/12/98}
REPLY by plaintiff William H. Viehweg to
response to motion for leave to file sec-
ond amended complaint [100-1] (jwj)
ORDER by Mag Judge Thomas C. Mum-
mert denying as moot the motion for
order for rule 35 exam [40-1], denying as
moot the motion to compel [37-1], deny-
ing motion without prejudice to compel
production [34-1], granting motion to dis-
miss amended complaint as to Count III
[17-1], denying in all other respects with-
out prejudice the motion for judgment on
the pleadings [17-2] (cc: all counsel) (llw)
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello
for leave to formally supplement the her
4/2/98 -
4/2/98 104
4/9/98 105
4/9/98 106
4/9/98 107
4/16/98 108
5/6/98 109
App. 21
Motion for summary judgment w/Memo
in Support & proposed supplement
attached to motion (llw) [Entry date
04/01/98] [Edit date 04/03/98]
RULED DOCUMENT by Mag Judge
Thomas C. Mummert granting motion for
leave to formally supplement the her
Motion for summary judgment [104-1]
LEAVE GRANTED (ce: all counsel) (llw)
[Entry date 04/03/98]
SUPPLEMENTAL by defendant Susan H.
Mello re motion for summary judgment
[71-1] see attachment to the Motion to
Supplement (also Doc# 104) [Entry date
04/03/98]
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION w/memo in
sppt by defendant Susan H. Mello for
summary judgment (Isd) [Entry date
04/14/98]
RESPONSE by plaintiff William H. Vieh-
weg to motion for summary judgment
[105-1] (lsd) [Entry date 04/14/98]
ANSWER by defendant Susan H. Mello to
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [13-1]
(fld. 10 w/in days of ruling on mtn. to
dismiss) (Isd) [Entry date 04/14/98] [Edit
date 04/14/98]
REPLY by defendant Susan H. Mello to
response to motion for summary judg-
ment [105-1] (jwj) [Entry date 04/17/98]
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
for order of revision of the March 30, 1998
order dismissing Count III of the
5/8/98 110
5/11/98
5/15/98
5/19/98
5/26/98
111
112
113
114
App. 22
amended complaint (jwj) [Entry date
05/07/98}
MOTION w/attachments by plaintiff Wil-
liam H. Viehweg for order to correct the
written record of minutes and 12/2/97
court order of 11/17/97 hearing (isd)
[Entry date 05/11/98]
RESPONSE in opposition by plaintiff Wil-
liam H. Viehweg to motion for order of
revision of the March 30, 1998 order dis-
missing Count III of the amended com-
plaint [109-1] (llw) [Entry date 05/12/98]
REPLY in opposition by plaintiff William
H. Viehweg to response to motion for
order of revision of the March 30, 1998
order dismissing Count HI of the
amended complaint [109-1] (Ilw) [Entry
date 05/18/98]
MOTION by plaintiff William H. Viehweg
to disqualify attorneys Harper & Speiser
& the Law firm of Brinker & Doyen
w/pltfs EX 1 attached (Ilw)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: by Mag
Judge Thomas C. Mummert granting
motion for order of revision of the March
30, 1998 order dismissing Count III of the
amended complaint [109-1], denying .
motion for leave to file second amended
complaint [100-1], granting motion for
summary judgment [71-1] denying
motion to disqualify attorneys Harper &
Speiser & the Law firm of Brinker &
Doyen [113-1], denying motion for order
to correct the written record of minutes
and 12/2/97 court order of 11/17/97
Fo ee ee
ee te
App. 23
hearing [110-1], denying motion for sum-
mary judgment [105-1], denying motion
to quash [91-1], denying motion to strike
deft’s expert witness report [91-2], deny-
ing motion to dismiss [89-1], denying
motion to strike based on pltf’s December
1997 answers to interrogatories [89-2],
denying motion for order sealing pltfs
response to dft’s motion for summary jgm
[90-1], denying motion to dismiss for lack
of Subject Matter jurisdiction [86-1],
denying motion for other relief for CMO
& Rule violations [74-2] granting motion
for order sealing dft’s deposition tran-
scrippt, videotape deposition [90-1],
granting motion for order sealing pltfs
response to dft’s motion for summary jgm
[90-1] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
defendant Susan Mello’s Motion motion
to seal the transcript & videotape of her
deposition; The Clerks Office is directed
to seal the transcript of her deposition
docketed as number 94 & the copy of the
transcript attached as an exhibit to pltf’s
pleading docketed as number 95 (cc: all
counsel) (llw) [Entry date 05/27/98] [Edit
date 05/27/98]
5/26/98 115 JUDGMENT: by Mag Judge Thomas C.
-Mummert for defendant Susan H. Mello
against plaintiff William H. Viehweg and
terminating case (cc: all counsel) (llw)
[Entry date 05/27/98]
5/26/98 - SEALED DOCUMENT [95-1] (llw) [Entry
date 05/27/98]
5/26/98 116 MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello to
extend time to file response to plaintiff’s
5/28/98
6/15/98
6/24/98
6/24/98
6/24/98
6/25/98
6/30/98
6/30/98
116
117
118
120
App. 24
motion to disqualify up to and including
5/29/98 (bak) [Entry date 06/01/98]
RULED DOCUMENT by Mag Judge
Thomas C. Mummert denying as moot
motion to extend time to file response to
plaintiff's to disqualify up to and includ-
ing 5/29/98 [116-1] (cc: all counsel) (bak)
[Entry date 06/01/98]
BILL OF COST SUBMITTED by defendant
Susan H. Mello; Objection ddl 6/29/98 re
[115-2] (Isd) [Entry date 06/16/98]
NOTICE OF APPEAL filed by plaintiff
William H. Viehweg re: the District Court
decision; [115-2], [114-1] fee; $105.00 (Ilw)
RECEIPT #S98-007512 in the amount of
$105.00 for Appeal Fee (llw)
NOTICE by counsel for defendant Susan
H. Mello of approval of itemization of
costs (llw) [Entry date 06/26/98]
DELIVERED TO USCA - 1 Civil Appeal
Cover Sheet, 2 Certified Copies of Notice
of Appeal, 2 Certified Copies of Clerk’s
Docket entries and 2 copies of JUDG-
MENT/MEMORANDUM & ORDER
(TCM) fld. 06/24/98, cc: Notice of appeal
to Judge Mummert. cc: Notice of appeal,
clerk’s docket entries and USCA letter to
parties. (mef)
OBJECTIONS by plaintiff William H.
Viehweg to Bill of costs w/attached EXS
1-4 (llw) [Entry date 07/01/98]
CERTIFICATE of service by plaintiff Wil-
liam H. Viehweg; w/attached Form A
(lIlw) [Entry date 07/01/98]
App. 25
7/9/98 122 NOTIFICATION AND BRIEFING
SCHEDULE (USCA) FILED USCA #:
98-2732 Transcript Due: 8/18/98 Briefs
Due: 10/15/98 (bak) [Entry date
07/15/98]
7/9/98 123 REPLY MEMO IN SUPPORT OF BILL OF
COSTS by defendant Susan H. Mello re
[120-1], re [117-1] (bak) [Entry date
07/15/98}
7/9/98 124 NOTIFICATION AND BRIEFING
SCHEDULE (USCA) FILED USCA #:
98-2732 Transcript Due: 8/18/98 Briefs
Due: 10/15/98 (bak) [Entry date
07/15/98]
7/9/98 125 Transmittal Acknowledgment from USCA
4 file volumes, transcript volumes USCA
number: 98-2732 as to defendant: Susan
Mello (bak) [Entry date 07/15/98]
8/12/98 - GENERIC SCHEDULING EVENT; Objec-
tion ddl satisfied; objections to bill of
costs filled 6/30/98 (txc)
8/14/98 126 TRANSCRIPT filed from Rule 16 Confer-
ence of April 16, 1997; court reporter:
Laura Wildermuth (txc) [Entry date
08/17/98]
8/14/98 127 TRANSCRIPT filed from Pre-Trial Motion
Hearing of November 17, 1997; court
reporter: Laura Wildermuth (txc) [Entry
date 08/17/98]
8/17/98 - TRANSCRIPT ORDER - for proceedings
of Rule 16 Conference (4/16/97) and Pre-
Trial Motion Hearing (11/17/97),
recorded by Court Reporters Laura Wil-
dermuth (Rule 16) & Laura Dreon (Pre-
Se
App. 26
Trial Conf.), as ordered by William Vieh-
weg (txc) [Edit date 08/17/98]
8/21/98 128 Transmittal Acknowledgment from USCA
2 transcript volumes USCA number:
98-2732 as to defendant: Susan H. Mello
(txc) [Entry date 08/24/98]
10/14/98 - FILE RETURNED # of volumes; 5 re
appeal [118-1] (llw) [Entry date 10/16/98]
10/15/98 129 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: by Mag
Judge Thomas C. Mummert IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that plitf’s objections
to deft’s Bill of Costs is granted in part
and denied in part. FURTHER ORDERED
that the following costs shall be and are
taxed against pltf.: Fees of court reporter:
$163.30; Fees for witnesses; $90.00
TOTAL: $253.30. IF IS FINALLY
ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall
tax in favor of deft Susan Mello and
against pltf. Wm. Viehweg costs in the
total amt of $253.30 granting motion BILL
OF COST SUBMITTED [117-1] granting
bill of costs response [120-1] (cc: all coun-
sel) (Isd)
10/15/98 - COSTS taxed for defendant Susan H.
~~ Mello in the amount of $253.30 against
plaintiff William H. Viehweg (cc: all coun-
sel) (Isd)
10/16/98 - ENTIRE FILE SENT TO (USCA) - # of
Volumes; 4 plus an expandable file folder
(1lw)
11/4/98 130 Transmittal Acknowledgment from USCA
5 file volumes, transcript volumes USCA
number; 98-2732 as to defendant: Mello
(txc) [Entry date 11/05/98]
(aac as ee cn. AA eee Sem RIT PINE RENE EE RN
Rte ere mee ren Ne en en -
App. 27
9/20/99 131 Transmittal acknowledgment from USCA:
9/23/99 132
Sealed Docket #94 (txc)
FILE RETURNED re appeal [118-1] (Sea-
led Docket #94) (txc) [Entry date
09/24/99]
10/19/99 133 Opinion from USCA on USCA number
98-2732 Opinion of USCA: affirm & deny
all pending motions on appeal (llw)
[Entry date 10/20/99]
12/15/99 134 ORDER FROM USCA copy filed USCA
1/26/00 135
1/27/00 136
2/3/00 137
2/7/00 138
2/17/00 -
number: 98-2732 petition for rehearing by
the appellant has been considered by the
court and is denied. (lsd)
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello to
seal the Court file, & for protective order
w/attached EXS A-G, and Memo in Sup-
port (llw) [Entry date 01/27/00]
MANDATE W/JUDGMENT from (USCA)
affirming the decision of the District
Court [118-1] USCA number: 98-2732
EMSL (cc: all counsel) (llw) [Entry date
01/28/00]
RESPONSE by plaintiff William H. Vieh-
weg to motion to seal the Court file
[135-1], to motion for protective order
[135-2] (txc)
LETTER from plaintiff William H. Vieh-
weg (txc) [Entry date 02/09/00]
ORDER FROM USCA copy filed USCA
number: 98-2732 The appellee’s motion to
seal the court file is granted. Motion
denied in all other aspects. (lsd) [Entry
date 03/01/00)
2/28/00 139
3/27/00 140
App. 28
MOTION by defendant Susan H. Mello
for order allowing oral argument on the
motion to seal the court file (llw) [Entry
date 02/29/00]
FILE RETURNED # of volumes 4, 1
expansion folder, 2 transcripts (llw)
[Entry date 03/28/00]
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.