Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Bazargani v. Snyder (No. 09-267)
Supreme Court brief2009
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
S my
6 (@) uprame Court U.S.
’) No. 09-267 AUG 31 2086
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Sun The
Supreme Court of the United States
TAWOOS BAZARGANI,
Petitioner,
KENNETH and JACQUELINE SNYDER
and PAUL BAGHERPOUR,
Respondents.
On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Third Circuit
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TAWOOS BAZARGAN!, M.D., Pro Se
40 Old Lancaster Road, No. 406
Merion, PA 19066
610-668-1064
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the opinion beiow departed from the
accepted and usual course of Judicial proceedings and
therefore necessitated the United States Supreme
Court’s supervision because its ruling conflicts with
this court’s prior rulings upon the plaintiffs’ malicious
abuse of process and plaintiffs’ violation of peti-
tioner’s due process rights involving petitioner’s
postal property.
2. Whether opinion below departed from the
accepted and usual course of Judicial proceedings and
therefore necessitated the United States Supreme
Court’s supervision because its ruling conflicts with
this court’s prior rulings upon the plaintiffs’ violation
of petitioner’s due process rights by seizing peti-
tioner’s property after the judgment subject to litiga-
tion has already been satisfied.
3. Whether opinion below departed from the
accepted and usual course of Judicial proceedings and
therefore necessitated the United States Supreme
Court’s supervision because its ruling conflicts with
this court’s prior rulings upon depriving a petitioner
from petitioner’s due process rights by ordering
against proceeding petitioner’s defenses while plain-
tiffs continued to prosecute their claims against such
a petitioner.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ~— Continued
4. Whether opinion below departed from the
accepted and usual course of Judicial proceedings and
therefore necessitated the United States Supreme
Court’s supervision because its ruling conflicts with
this court’s prior rulings upon plaintiffs’ entitlement
for attorney fees while plaintiffs maliciously abused
the legal proceeding in pursuing their claim to its
merits.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Pe RPE Ee SOMURIEE TF Pie iscnascassacisvincessasncsccesirian onan
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PRO-
VISIONS INVOLVED
STATEMENT OF CASE
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
B. STATEMENT OF FACTS
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
1. Whether the opinion below departed from the
accepted and usual course of Judicial proceed-
ings and therefore necessitated the United
States Supreme Court’s supervision because
its ruling conflicts with this court’s prior
rulings upon the plaintiffs’ malicious abuse of
process ana plaintiffs’ violation of petitioner’s
due process rights involving petitioner’s post-
al property.
2. Whether opinion below departed from the
accepted and usual course of Judicial proceed-
ings and therefore necessitated the United
States Supreme Court’s supervision because
its ruling conflicts with this court’s prior
rulings upon the plaintiffs’ violation of
petitioner’s due process rights by seizing
petitioner’s property after the judgment
subject to litigation has already been
satisfied.
1V
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page
3. Whether opinion below departed from the ac-
cepted and usual course of Judicial proceed-
ings and therefore necessitated the United
States Supreme Court’s supervision because
its ruling conflicts with this court’s prior rul-
ings upon depriving a_ petitioner from
petitioner’s due process rights by ordering
against proceeding petitioner’s defenses while
plaintiffs continued to prosecute their claims
against such a petitioner.
4. Whether opinion below departed from the
accepted and usual course of Judicial
proceedings and therefore necessitated the
United States Supreme Court’s supervision
because its ruling conflicts with this court’s
prior rulings upon plaintiffs’ entitlement for
attorney fees while plaintiffs maliciously
abused the legal proceeding in pursuing
their claim to its merits.
I. THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED
BECAUSE THE OPINION BELOW CON-
FLICTS WITH THIS COURTS PRIOR
RULINGS UPON THE PLAINTIFFS’
VIOLATION OF PETITIONER’S DUE
PROCESS RIGHTS INVOLVING 'PETI-
TIONER’S POSTAL PROPERTY AND
PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO FOLLOW
THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE WHILE PROSECUTING
Ee Ris sain scides vasiasieeiemnanepenseetiess 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued
Page
Il. THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED
BECAUSE THE OPINION BELOW CON-
FLICTS WITH THIS COURT'S PRIOR
RULINGS UPON THE PLAINTIFFS’
VIOLATION OF PETITIONER’S DUE
PROCESS RIGHTS BY SEIZING PETI-
TIONER’S PROPERTY AFTER THE
JUDGMENT SUBJECT TO LITIGATION
HAS ALREADY BEEN SATISFIED.......... 13
lil. THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED
BECAUSE THIS COURTS PRIOR RUL-
INGS CONFLICTS WITH THE OPINION
BELOW UPON DEPRIVING THE PETI-
TIONER FROM PURSUING _ PETI-
TIONERS DEFENSES AGAINST THE
PLAINTIFFS WHILE PLAINTIFFS CON-
TINUED TO PROCEED THEIR CLAIM
AGAINST SUCH A PETITIONER .......... ne |
IV. THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED
BECAUSE THIS COURT'S PRIOR RUL-
INGS CONFLICT WITH THE OPINION
BELOW UPON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM
FOR ATTORNEY FEES WHILE PLAIN-
TIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS IN
PROCEEDING THEIR CLAIM HAVE
TOTALLY VIOLATED THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND
PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
INVOLVING PETITIONER’S POSTAL
IEEE wares pecises hts cacnicivnses oeeeeee none 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, Opinion (Filed May 5, 2009) .............. App. 1
United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, Judgment (Filed May 5, 2009)........... App. 6
United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Memorandum and
PPG CE LISE GUY FZ, DIGS) oo csccccscscssccccscensecssonss App. 8
United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Order (Filed July 2,
a eaerad cevesixedass App. 10
United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, Order On Motion By Appellant To
Reconsider Clerk’s Order (Filed April 17,
ES barca acbs banck ude sistas sinsaesenakusscuasaseeases App. ll
United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Order On Motion
To Demand For Compensatory ._Damages
LPOG BERTER B, BOOB)... .cccsccccesccceessssscnsscsscsness App. 12
United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Memorandum and
Order (Filed October 24, 2007)...................... App. 13
United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Order (Filed Octo-
or, rhc Vass digucsathnincasdesamepsncwinavs App. 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued
United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, Order On Sur Petition For Rehear-
ing With Suggestion For Rehearing En Banc
(Filed June 2, 2009)
APPENDIX B
§ 23:117 Pa. R.C.P., Rule No. 1019(b) Mali-
cious abuse of process
39 § 3001 Postal Service Ch. 30 .......... ee. App.
Federal Practice and Procedure (V-5C) § 1382.
— Redundant, Immaterial, Impertinent, or
Scandalous Matter
Dy PE ee ON lls Wve ssesinsecksetcsarstavcarecscrsseeins App. :
APPENDIX C
United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Excerpts From
Jury Trial — Day 1 (Filed June 14, 2005) App.
United States District Court, Philadelphia,
PA, Receipts Deposited Into Court Registry
by Defendant, Bazargani
Certificate of Service from Thomas E.
Groshens (Filed January 22, 2008)
First Class Mail (Postmark January 22,
Letter from Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. to Ms.
Anita Hill, Post Master, February 9, 2008...... App.
Vill
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Letter from Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. to Ms.
PIR TAGE, SUMS Dy BIB eeiecevccescenvssccceccsessss .... App. 34
Transmission Verification Report to Ms.
Anita Hill, Post Master, June 9, 2008........... App. 36
United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Writ of Execution ...App. 38
United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Letter to U.S. Mar-
shals Service (Received April 17, 2008)......... App. 40
Letter from Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. to Thomas
E. Groshens Esquire, April 16, 2008.............. App. 41
Letter from Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. to Mr.
Ronald H. Beifeld, Esquire, April 16, 2008...App. 42
PNCBank Account Balance, May 7, 2008.....App. 43
Affidavit of Mr. Feridoon Bazargani, June 27,
SINE 1h scaii tases suvieieobacusexnuiestapuadeksioeckiatasuioeerskoess App. 44
Letter from Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. to Mr.
Thomas E. Groshens Esquire, May 7, 2008...App. 46
Transmission Verification Report to Mr.
Thomas Groshens, May 7, 2008).................... App. 48
Certified Mail Receipts, May 2008................ App. 49
Letter from Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. to Mr.
Joel Gold, The PNC Financial Service Group,
I cavenss 705 tsae 51 a0 lk onaascdeisesiecaieees sores App. !
a |
bo
- . —_ a) : . *. -
/ oe 3S ore to" se PF? S|
ln My a te
y fe * ba 7
- 2s. 2a ooo 4
LX
TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued
Page
Performance Money Market Account State-
moerat, FPECC RAGBUEE sccccacvsemeeereias felons cinvensceess App. 53
Certificate of Service from Thomas _ E.
Groshens, June 27, 2008 ..........cccssscsccessssecssees App. 54
United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Arbitration Award
(Filed September 21, 2004)..............0.00..........App. 55
-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Association of Flight Attendants v. Horizon Air
Indus., Inc., 976 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1992)..........
Berg v. Georgetown Builders, Inc., 2003 Pa.
Super. 151, 822 A.2d 810 (2003)
Chemetron Corp. v. Jones, 72 F.3d 341 (3rd Cir.
1995)
Garcia v. Wall & Ochs, Inc., 256 Pa. Super. 74,
389 A.2d 607 (1978)
Glen Rock Borough v. Miller, 720 A.2d 800
(1998)
Hodges v. Sasil Corp., 915 A.2d 1 (2007)
Hoover v. McChesney, 81 F. 472 (C.C.Ky. 1897) ...
In re Upset Sale, Tax Claim Bureau of Berks
County, 505 Pa. 327, 479 A.2d 940 (1984)
Independent Oil and Gas Ass’n of Pennsylvania
v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Com’n, 804
A.2d 693 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002)..............ccceccces
Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551
F.2d 887 (2d Cir. 1976)
McGee v. Feege, 517 Pa. 247, 535 A.2d 1020
CREE PD accisisscce
Muirhead v. Zucker, 726 F. Supp. 613 (W.D. Pa.
L9OS8Y)
Page
ae 21
awe 21
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued
Page
Neilson v. Union Bank of California, 290
F. Supp. 2d 1101 (D.C. Cal. 2003)..................seceeees 19
Paskaly v. Seale, 506 F.2d 1209 ( Cir. 19'74)..cccccss 17
Pena v. Guzman, WL 253331 (D.C. N.Y. 2004)..........19
Pessin v. Keeneland Ass’n, 45 F.R.D. 10 (D.C.
EEK SENN sc cak senuséanbccadeaseseeanswmunabpanammduentucdunmuaeiassienss 19
Rosen v. Tesoro Petroleum Corp., 399 Pa. Super.
a ee se ee are © RUUD... .., .cneccavearcduanvavscceaapeucns cry
Sullivan v. Barnett, 139 F.3d 158 (3rd Cir
| RRA AE SSO eee eee De Hs L6
Thunberg v. Strause, 545 Pa. 607, 682 A.2d 295
|, IDES erm EOD 21
CONSTITUTIONS
U.S. Const. amend. XIV .... | Rea Fa LS
Pa. Const. amend. XIV 15
STATUTES
15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq.... = euushasausuieleaane
15 U.S.C. Section 1692(f)(1 lo
28 U.S.C. Section 657(c). eee ore 6
28 U.S.C. Section 1254(1).. 7 cay ieaweuae
39 U.S.C.A. Section 3001 ......... eases nee ee Se
42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 25038. 21
X11
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued
Page
RULES
Kederal Rules of Civil Procedure
= ee piasbddusesdnahevessuboiee?s ” aoe
Rule 12(f)............. ae epasaracevaiell
Rule 54.171{/2)[e][i}..... aa EES 3,21
NE MEINE Bo. cccncisctsssenbesianannede aaeeesaeeans! nevee ae
Rule 1019(b)........ Visapadeuteansas siasusat taxesaasieetataseelaaeice’
Rule 510.24[1][a] ]
PERE Ree LUI ccccccccescocsscccens: 1
en er rr aT ss csdachudoeubaudevuscaviessdonsces st
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 1019(b) l
OTHER AUTHORITIES
1872, 14 Op.Atty.Gen. 143.......... , icawisnsveeme
1908, 27 Op.Atty.Gen. 49
a
—
to
No
—
.
~
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
OPINION BELOW
The panel and en banc rehearing entered its
judgment on June 2, 2009 for the case No. 08-3435
and the Order of District Judge and the opinion of the
case are attached and the deadline date for filing the
petition for the writ of certiorari is August 31, 2009.
5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The panel and en banc entered its judgment on
June 2, 2009. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked
under 28 U.S.C. section 1254(1).
+
CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F. R. Civ. P.”)
Rules 510.24[lifa] & 510.24[1]j[b] plus Rule
510.24[1][b]{i] govern the United States Supreme
Court’s supervisory power assuring that circuit courts
remain within accepted boundaries (these rules are
reprinted in the Appendix B as they are documented).
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule
10196) governs the abuse of legal process, the
following documentation further explains about this
Rule “The tort of abuse of process is concerned with a
perversion of the legal process, that is, the improper
use of process after it has been issued ... Legal
2
malice is not limited to motives of hatred or ill will,
but may consist of a ... reckless and oppressive
disregard”.
39 U.S.C.A., Section 3001, Note 1, No. 12,
governs the Rules involving the delayed delivery of
individual mail in a very precise and mandatory
manner as follows: “The Postmaster General has no
authority to order the detention of mail matter after
it has reached its destination and been distributed by
the Postmaster ready for delivery though there is well
grounded suspicion that it is or has been attempted to
be circulated in violation of law. 1872, 14 Op.Atty.
Gen. 143.
39 U.S.C.A., Section 3001, Note 1, No. 3, governs
the Rules involving due process rights of individuals’
postal property and the protection of their postal
property as follows: “The Postmaster General has no
power to make any contract or agreement with any
corporation, partnership, or individual whereby such
party shall enjoy privileges in connection with the use
of the mails which are not granted to any other
person... . 1908, 27 Op.Atty Gen. 49”, it further rules
as follow: “The right to use the mails is a property
right which can not be taken away except by due
process of law”.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12, section
1382 governs the rules involving immaterial and
impertinent motions as follows: “However, because
federal judges have made it clear, in numerous
opinions they have rendered in many substantive
contexts, that Rule 12(f) motions to strike on any of
these grounds are not favored, often being considered
purely cosmetic”.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule
54.171[2][c][ij governs the entitlement of the attorney
fees in litigations as follows: “Liability for Fees May
Be Imposed on Counsel or Litigant Who Acts in Bad
Faith”. When a party acts “in bad faith, vexatiously,
wantonly, or for oppressive reasons,” the court may
employ its inherent equitable power to award
attorney fees as sanction. Such a fee award is
permissible under the bad faith ... and its purpose is
to compensate the wronged party, punish the
wrongdoer, and protect the integrity of the court.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
For twenty three (23) years, since purchase,
the owner Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. (“Dr. Bazargani”)
has always rented out, her property subject to this
claim, at One Christian Street, Apt. 43, Philadelphia,
PA 19147 (“rental property”), and for twenty three
(23) years this property has been rented to the
tenants without any animal, transcript of jury trial of
June 14 & 15, 2005 included in the record {see trial
transcript, Pg. 1.122, App. 23-26, and attached io
previous petition for Writ of Certiorari of October 30,
2007, No. 07-399.
For about a decade in 1980s Dr. Bazargani
contracted the realtor NASH to manage the rental
property and Mr. Thom Schlicking as the manager of
the realtor had full authority in choosing any tenant
who seemed reasonable but applied no pet policy. A
copy of the lease of realtor NASH with tenants,
Lisa Thurman, Betsy L. Buhl and Leslie Moran
has been presented during the trial the following is
from the lease paragraph “1. (a) witnesseth, section(s)
No pets or animal of any kind whatsoever will be
permitted on or within the herein’ described
premises.” (see trial transcript, Pg. 2.22-2.25 attached
to petition No. 07-399).
In or about November 2000, Mr. Paul
Bagherpour volunteered as the agent to procure
tenant for Dr. Bazargani’s rental property and
Dr. Bazargani agreed to compensate Mr. Paul
Bagherpour as the agent (see trial transcript Pgs.
1.137-138). Dr. Bazargani told Mr. Bagherpour about
the absolute prohibition against pets, and rejected the
plaintiffs’ application merely because of having a pet.
Dr. Bazargani, however, never instructed Mr.
Bagherpour to reject certain types of tenant these
facts are documented in trial transcript (see trial
transcript Pgs. 1.127, App. 23-76).
The rest of the plaintiffs’ story about the instant
claim merely has been based upon the alleged con-
versation between plaintiffs and defendant Paul
Bagherpour whom alleged conversation with plain-
tiffs has entitled plaintiffs of filing the instant claim
and whom also has been relieved by plaintiffs from
enduring any monitory damages in this claim in the
expense of Dr. Bazargani being responsible involving
any monetary claim demanded by plaintiffs.
Dr. Bazargani is an innocent bystander in this
claim who has only been held responsible as a
principle of defendant Mr. Paul Bagherpour. Follow-
ing the commencement of the action Dr. Bazargani
retained Mr. Joel W. Todd from the firm of Dolchin,
Slotkin & Todd in order to represent Dr. Bazargani in
the instant claim. Because of agreement between the
plaintiffs and Mr. Joel W. Todd about a Mutual
Release where they would relieve Dr. Bazargani from
any liability, therefore, there has not been any pre-
trial discovery what so ever. However, Mr. Joel W.
Todd later withdrew from the case without any
substitution, Plaintiffs disregarded the signed Mutual
Release by Dr. Bazargani, consequently, in June 2005
Dr. Bazargani proceeded to the de novo hearing with
no discovery and no attorney (see petition No. 07-399)
and on June 16, 2005 a verdict was issued for $40,000
compensatory damages against both petitioners
plus punitive damages which was $20,000 for Dr.
Bazargani and $30,000 for Mr. Bagherpour and the
case was appealed.
B. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The instant complaint was filed by the plaintiffs
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pa. in or about December 2002. On or about
September 20, 2004 an Arbitration hearing was held
6
where Dr. Bazargani was represented by her attorney
Mr. Joel W. Todd from the firm of Dolchin, Slotkin
and Todd. The Arbitrators’ decision was in favor of
the owner petitioner Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. (“Dr.
Bazargani”) a copy of decision is attached (see App.
55-56) and the Arbitrators also found $10,000.00 in
favor of plaintiffs and against defendant Mr. Paul
Bagherpour (“Mr. Bagherpour’”).
Petitioner Mr. Bagherpour immediately after,
appealed the Arbitrators’ decision. Therefore, plain-
tiffs claimed the following: “The third Circuit’s recent
decision in D’Jorio makes absolutely clear that once
one party files a timely demand for a trial de novo,
the case is restored to the docket and treated for all
purposes as if the arbitration has never occurred”
while referring to F. R. Civ. P. 83(a)(1) and the plain
language of 28 U.S.C. section 657(c).
Mr. Joe] W. Todd agreed with plaintiffs to sign a
Mutual Release to relieve Dr. Bazargani from any
lability in this claim, therefore, there has not been
any pre-trial discovery (see Petition No. 07-399).
However, later on, Mr. Joe! W. Todd withdrew from
the case without any substitution, plaintiffs dis-
regarded the Mutual Release which was signed by Dr.
Bazargani and was relieving Dr. Bazargani from any
liability and Dr. Bazargani who was unsuccessful to
retain any attorney in June 2005 proceeded to the
trial with no discovery and with no attorney.
Following the verdict against Dr. Bazargani,
although, at all time Mr. Paul Bagherpour was the
resident of New Jersey but plaintiffs excused and
pursuant to common law tort principle hold Dr.
Bazargani responsible for the entire of Compensatory
damages ordered against both defendant Paul
Bagherpour and Dr. Bazargani. Consequently, by
September 6, 2007 plaintiffs issued a Writ of
Execation upon Dr. Bazargani for $60,000.00 plus
$4,501.00 interest while the case was pending the
appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Dr. Bazargani
motioned and objected to holding Dr. Bazargani
responsible for defendant Paul Bagherpour’s share.
On October 24, 2007 the Court tssued its Order where
Dr. Bazargani’s Objection in reference to the
Plaintiffs’ Writ of Execution was treated as a Motion
and was denied and an Order was issued that Dr.
Bazargani may obtain a further stay of the judgment
by posting security in the sum of $75,000.00 which
included Compensatory damages against both pe-
titioners plus punitive damages in addition to
$15,000.00 (see Appendix A). By December 2007 Dr.
Bazargani issued check for a sum of $75,000.00
addressed to the Clerk of United States District
Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was
posted with the clerk pursuant to the court order of
October 24, 2007 (see Appendix A, App. 13-15). On
January 22, 2008 plaintiffs filed “Plaintiffs’ Motion
For Disbursement Of Funds Tendered To The Clerk
And Deposited In The Registry Of The Court” in the
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsyl-
vania. On January 22, 2008 plaintiffs served a copy of
“Plaintiffs’ Motion For Disbursement Of Funds Ten-
dered To The Clerk And Deposited In The Registry
8
Of The Court” upon petitioner Dr. Bazargani. Al-
though the envelope containing the above mentioned
motion in this paragraph was postmarked January
22, 2008 but inexplicably this mail was delivered to
Dr. Bazargani by the mail man on February 8, 2008
that is seventeen (17) days past the date when the
envelope was postmarked (see Appendix. C, App. 29-
30). Dr. Bazargani through her letters of
February 9, 2008, and March 5, 2008 to the
postmaster has documented about the
seventeen days discrepancy between the dates
of the mail being postmarked and the date of
delivery of plaintiffs’ motion of January 22, 2008
where the plaintiffs were demanding to get
access to the checks for $75,000.00 endorsed by
petitioner Dr. Bazargani’s bank, (see Appendix
C, App. 27-28). The seventeen (17) days discrep-
ancy as documented above in this paragraph is
not only a violation of the United States
Constitution and the service is a nuility for
itself, but more importantly, it is such a
invasion of petitioner Dr. Bazargani’s mailing
property which can be a serious risk to Dr.
Bazargani professionally, economically and is
such a serious crime that aside from the fine, it
mandates one year imprisonment. Dr. Bazargani
has exerted every effort to investigate such a risk to
her professional and social life and the post offices
have made it clear that they have not been
instrumental in such a delay and they bear no
responsibility in this crime. On the contrary the
plaintiffs and their attorneys on an ongoing basis
have avoided to respond to any questions involving
9
such a serious crime and have totally tried to avoid it
(see Appendix C, App. 54). In May 2008 the plaintiffs
have further victimized petitioner Dr. Bazargani as a
pro se and have violated Dr. Bazargani’s due process
rights by taking an action against Dr. Bazargani’s
Personal property while having a levy upon Dr.
Bazargani’s entire Bank Accounts in PNC Bank and
plaintiffs have already satisfied the entire judgment
by levying the Bank Accounts (see Appendix C, App.
43) while excusing the PNC as a cause for their action
because of a Joint Account with Mr. F. Bazargani, Dr.
Bazargani’s brother, while a week prior to plaintiffs
action the Bank has utilized the same Joint Account
to satisfy two checks, further Mr. F. Bazargani, has
verbally and through his Affidavit (see Appendix
C, App. 44-45) has informed the Bank that Dr.
Bazargani can utilize the entire amount in the Joint
Account. The Plaintiffs have presented a
Supplemental Appendix basically about their action
against the petitioner’s property after the judgment
was satisfied which almost the entire Booklet has
never been a part of the court record and were
presented to the petitioner for the first time which
petitioner Dr. Bazargani has objected. On May 5,
2009 the Honorable United States Court of Appeal for
Third Circuit has issued its order against plaintiffs’
claim to held Dr. Bazargani responsible for defendant
Paul Bagherpour’s share, considering defendant Paul
Bagherpour’s for attorney fees and Compensatory
damages, plaintiffs have satisfied the judgment by
levying Dr. Bazargani’s all Bank Accounts, including
plaintiffs’ excuses about petitioner Dr. Bazargani’s
10
Joint Account with her brother, indeed excluding
defendant Paul Bagherpour’s share petitioner Dr.
Bazargani’s cash available in her Bank Accounts have
been more than twice of what plaintiffs have legally
been entitle to levy petitioner Dr. Bazargani’s Bank
Accounts to satisfy the judgment without violating
Dr. Bazargani’s due process rights. Finally, Plaintiffs
being so desperate to avoid the questions involving
their criminal action, in proceeding their claim,
plaintiffs tried to excuse that Dr. Bazargani’s motions
being impertinent and demanded against Dr.
Bazargani to pursue her defenses through the judi-
clary system involving any matters in relation to
plaintiffs’ claim (see Appendices A and B).
* —
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED
BECAUSE THE OPINION BELOW CON-
FLICTS WITH THIS COURT’S PRIOR
RULINGS UPON THE PLAINTIFFS’ VIO-
LATION OF PETITIONER’S DUE PROC.-
ESS RIGHTS INVOLVING PETITIONER’S
POSTAL PROPERTY AND PLAINTIFFS’
FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE FEDERAL
RULES OF -CIVIL PROCEDURE WHILE
PROSECUTING THEIR CLAIM.
The Honorable United States Supreme Court’s
supervision becomes necessary because petitioner’s
1]
due process rights have been badly violated by
plaintiffs abusing the legal process while proceeding
their claim.
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule No
101.916) rules as follow: “abuse of process is
concerned with a perversion of the legal
process, that is, the improper use of process
after it has been issued” see McGee v. Feege, 517
Pa. 247, 535 A.2d 1020 (1987); see Garcia v. Wall &
Ochs, Inc., 256 Pa. Super. 74, 389 A.2d 607 (1978).
The Rule further documents as follow: “Legal malice
is not limited to motives of hatred or ill will, but
may consist of a ... reckless and oppressive
disregard” see Muirhead v. Zucker, 726 F. Supp. 613
(W.D. Pa. 1989); see Rosen v. Tesoro Petroleum Corp.,
399 Pa. Super. 226, 582 A.2d 27 (1990).
Plaintiffs have filed their motion “Plaintiffs’
Motion For Disbursement Of Funds Tendered To The
Clerk And Deposited In The Registry Of The Court”
on January 22, 2009 in order to get access to
$75,000.00 deposited by petitioner Dr. Bazargani,
pursuant to the court order of October 24, 2007, in
the registry of the United States District Court for
Eastern District of Pennsylvania which necessitated
a Response by petitioner by two weeks, that is,
February 5, 2008 (see App. 29-30). The mail con-
taining this motion has arrived to the local post office
on February 8, 2008 while having a postmark of
January 22, 2008 and was placed in Dr. Bazargani’s
mail box by the mailman of the local post office the
same day (see App. 31-37). Plaintiffs have abused the
12
legal process by delaying the delivery of the service of
this motion for seventeen (17) days after the motion
has been postmarked on January 22, 2008 to be
mailed through the United States mail first class in
order to be delivered to petitioner Dr. Bazargani.
Consequently, plaintiffs by committing a crime and
abusing legal process in order to delay the delivery of
their service of their motion beyond two weeks
plaintiffs have further committed a second crime by
violating petitioner’s due process rights involving
petitioner's postal property (see App. 29-30).
U.S.C.A. Rule 39, Section 3001, Note 1, No. 12,
rules as follows: “The Postmaster General has no
authority to order the detention of mail matter after
it has reached its destination and been distributed by
the Postmaster ready for delivery though there is well
grounded suspicion that it is or has been attempted to
be circulated in violation of law. 1872, 14 Op.Atty.
Gen. 143.”
U.S.C.A. Rule 39, Section 3001, Note 1, No. 3,
rules as follows: “The Postmaster General has no
power to make any contract or agreement with any
corporation, partnership, or individual whereby such
party shill enjoy privileges in connection with the use
of the mails which are not granted to any other
person... . 1908, 27 Op.Atty Gen. 49”, it further rules
as follow: “The right to use the mails is a property
right which can not be taken away except by due
process of law”. See Hoover v. McChesney, C.C.Ky.
1897, 81 F. 472. Indeed the above Rules involving
the violation of the rights of an individual’s
l3
postal property is such a serious crime that in
addition to a fine also mandates one year
imprisonment.
It is self explanatory that the plaintiffs after
committing such a serious crimes while proceeding
their claim to its merit not only will be prohibited by
law (See below Argument No. IV) about claiming any
attorney fees but rather petitioner Dr. Bazargani who
has only been held responsible “for alleged defendant
Paul Bagherpour’s conversation with the plaintiffs”
will be entitled to claiming the cost for retaining an
attorney
Il. THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED
BECAUSE THE OPINION BELOW CON-
FLICTS WITH THIS COURT’S PRIOR
RULINGS UPON THE PLAINTIFFS’ VIO-
LATION OF PETITIONER’S DUE PROC-
ESS RIGHTS BY SEIZING PETITIONER’S
PROPERTY AFTER THE JUDGMENT SUB-
JECT TO LITIGATION HAS ALREADY
BEEN SATISFIED.
The Honorable United States Supreme Court’s
supervision becomes necessary because petitioner’s
due process rights have been badly violated by
plaintiffs taking action against petitioner’s property
while the judgment subject to litigation was secured
by levying petitioner’s Bank Accounts.
Plaintiffs have claimed that pursuant to common
law tort principle Dr. Bazargani can be held liable for
14
the entire judgment issued against both petitioners
including attorney fees, the United States Court of
Appeal for the Third Circuit on May 5, 2009 has
issued its Order against plaintiffs’ claim that plain.
tiffs can hold petitioner Dr. Bazargani responsible for
the damages ordered against both petitioners (that is
the damages and attorney fees that have been issued
against defendant Paul Bagherpour) (see App. 1-7).
As it has been documented in Writ of Execution (see
App. 38-39) plaintiffs have levied all of Dr. Bazargani’s
PNC Bank accounts for $87,000.00 which has been
far above the judgment amount and only included the
generous amount of interests but also included
defendant Paul Bagherpoar’s damages in addition to
attorney fees which has contradicted the Order of
May 5, 2009 of the Appellate Court, as documented
above. According to the Bank Statements received
from the PNC bank located at 1601 Market Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on May 30, 2008, which
has remained unchanged since May 7, 2008, (see App.
: ; f
43) the total amounts available in Dr. Bazargani’s
PNC Bank accounts has far exceeded the _ total
amounts of levies (see App. 38-39). On May 7, 2008
petitioner Dr. Bazargani, to personally reassure the
plaintiff about the sufficient funds available in her
PNC Bank accounts she has written her letters both
to Mr. Jvoel Gold the attorney for PNC Bank and to
Mr. Thomas E. Groshens, the plaintiffs’ attorney,
which has successfully been faxed the same day also
has been mailed certified with return receipt (see
App. 46-51). On May 8&, 2008 plaintiffs while having
15
levies on petitioner Dr. Bazargani’ss .PNC Bank
accounts which has satisfied the plaintiffs’ total
claims (yet including co defendant Paul Bagherpour’s
share also), while in total violation of petitioner’s due
process rights, has taken action against petitioner’s
property and while claiming a Marshal sale has
bought the property “indeed has taken as a donation”
which has been the violation of petitioner’s due
process rights by any standard.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
and Pennsylvania constitutions make it explicitly
clear that: “no State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United. States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law, nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” See
In re Upset Sale, Tax Claim Bureau of Berks County,
505 Pa. 327, 479 A.2d 940, 953 (1984); Glen Rock
Borough v. Miller, 720 A.2d 800 (1998). Petitioner
Dr. Bazargani’s asset was wrongfully seized, without
due process, without notice and without any hearing,
The affirmance of the lower court’s opinion can be a
drastic precedent in allowing creditors to liberalize
the notice standard as well seizing assets above the
judgment amount.
The plaintiffs’ acts as a creditor were in complete
disregard of public policy and due process.
16
It must be held against public policy when a
creditor seizes assets that are in excess of a judgment
and levy would serve no purpose but harassing a
debtor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15
USC Sec. 1692, et. seq.) protects the defendant in this
case. Congress determined that the purpose of the Act
was due to evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive
and unfair debt collection practices. Jd. One of the
requirements is that judgments must be verified.
However, in this case the judgment was not verified
prior to the Marshal’s sale because the substantial
evidence provided that the money was seized from
the Petitioner’s bank accounts. Seeking unjustified
amounts is a clear violation of the Act. 15 USC Sec.
1692(f)(1); Hodges v. Sasil Corp., 915 A.2da 1 (2007).
The Petitioner did not have adequate notice of
the motion and the seizure of assets. “Adequate notice
detailing the reasons for a proposed termination of a
constitutionally protected liberty or property interest
must be afforded to individuals prior to the depriva-
ion.” Sullivan v. Barnett, 139 F.3d 158, 172 (3rd Cir.
1998). The notice provided must be reasonably
calculated under the circumstances to apprise inter-
est parties of the pendency of the action and afford
them an opportunity to present their objections.
Chemetron Corp. v. Jones, 72 F.3d 341, 346 (8rd Cir.
1995).
Plaintiffs in their motion. “Schedule of Distribu-
tion” has excused petitioner Dr. Bazargani’s joint
account with her brother (Mr. Feridoon Bazargani) at
PNC Bank as a cause for taking action against
17
petitioner’s property and have accused that the PNC
Bank has not released petitioner’s assets from the
joint account, such an accusation is against the PNC
Bank’s transaction of April 30, 2008 (a week prior to
Marshal sale) when the PNC Bank has satisfied the
legal check from the very same joint account and is
nothing but a facade for plaintiffs’ illegal action (see
App. 53), furthermore, PNC Bank orally and finally
through Mr. Feridoon Bazargani’s affidavit has been
informed that petitioner Dr. Bazargani may utilize
the entire asset according to her discretion (see App.
44-45). Fourteenth Amendment, section one, note 921
rules as follow “Refusal in an administrative pro-
ceeding to permit a party to introduce evidence or
otherwise made an effective defense may constitute a
denial of due process if either liberty or property is at
stake in the proceeding” see Paskaly v. Seale, C.A.
Cal 1974, 506 F.2d 1209.
lil. THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED
BECAUSE THIS COURT’S PRIOR RUL-
INGS CONFLICT WITH THE OPINION
BELOW UPON DEPRIVING A _ PETI-
TIONER FROM PURSUING PETITIONER’S
DEFENSES WHILE PLAINTIFFS CON-
TINUE TO PROSECUTE THEIR CLAIM
AGAINST PETITIONER.
The Honorable United States Supreme Court’s
supervision becomes necessary because petitioner’s
due process rights have been badly violated by
18
banning petitioner from pursuing her defenses
against plaintiffs’ prosecution of the above claim.
As it has been detailed above through Arguments
number one and two (No. I & II) after plaintiffs have
filed their motion “Plaintiffs’ Motion For Disburse-
ment Of Funds Tendered To The Clerk And Deposited
In The Registry Of The Court” and committed a crime
by delaying the service of the motion for seventeen
(17) days from the postmarked date and after
plaintiffs seized the petitioner’s property while the
judgment was satisfied by levying petitioner’s bank
accounts, it is self explanatory that, petitioner, in
order, to present any available document indicative of
plaintiffs’ actions, has filed her motions and it is also
self explanatory that, plaintiffs have been trying to
avoid such motions which have been documenting
about their wrong doing. Consequently, on June 27,
2008 plaintiffs have motioned and made a demand
that petitioner Dr. Bavargani be banned from
litigating the above identified claim any further (see
App. 54), the following statement is from this motion
“*Plaintiffs’ Motion For Disbursement Of Funds
Tendered To The Clerk And Deposited In The
Registry Of The Court’ While much of Bazargani’s
latest motion is simply incomprehensible (which is
nothing but merely a defamatory accusation)
Bazargani again appears to claim that there were
sufficient funds in her various PNC accounts to fully
satisfy the balance of her lability to plaintiffs’ ...
when plaintiffs’ effort to garnish Bazargani’s accounts
19
at PNC proved fruitless ... ” while plaintiffs have
been trying to avoid any rebuts about petitioner’s
ietter of May 7, 2009 which has successfully been
faxed to plaintiffs the same day where petitioner
personally has informed plaintiffs that she has
sufficient deposits to satisfy the judgment (see App.
46-52). The followings are from Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure in reference to depriving a petitioner from
pursuing her defense.
Rule 12, Section 1382 rules as follows: “The
district court. possess considerable discretion in dis-
posing ... motion to strike redundant, impertinent,
immaterial ... because federal judges have made it
clear, in numerous opinions they have rendered in
many substantive contexts, that ... motions to strike
of any of these grounds are not favored and often
being considered purely cosmetic or, ‘time waster’”,
see Neilson v. Union Bank of California, D.C. Cal.
2003, 290 F. Supp. 2d 1101; see Pessin v. Keeneland
Ass’n, D.C. Ky. 1968, 45 F.R.D. 10, 13, and it further
rules as follow: “there appears to be general judicial
agreement, as reflected in the extensive case law on
the subject that, they should be denied and many
cause some form of significant prejudice to one or
more of the parties to the action” see Lipsky uv.
Commonwealth United Corp., C.A. 2d 1976, 551 F.2d
887; see Pena v. Guzman, D.C. N.Y. 2004, WL 253331.
Consequently, petitioner Dr. Bazargani_ strongly
objects about depriving petitioner from her due
process rights of pursuing her defenses against
plaintiffs’ above claim.
20
IV. THE PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED
BECAUSE THIS COURT’S PRIOR RUL-
INGS CONFLICT WITH THE OPINION
BELOW UPON PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR
ATTORNEY FEES WHILE PLAINTIFFS
AND THEIR ATTORNEYS IN PRO-
CEEDING THEIR CLAIM HAVE TOTALLY
VIOLATED THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE AND PETITIONER’S
DUE PROCESS RIGHTS INVOLVING
PETITIONER’S POSTAL PROPERTY
The Honorable United States Supreme Court’s
supervision becomes necessary because petitioner has
been further victimized by plaintiffs being awarded
with attorney fees after they have committed crime
and have been vexatious in proceeding their claim
against petitioner.
As it has been detailed above through Arguments
number one (No. I) that plaintiffs following filing
their motion “Plaintiffs’ Motion For Disbursement Of
Funds Tendered To The Clerk And Deposited In The
Registry Of The Court” have committed a serious
crime and have delayed the service of the motion for
seventeen (17) days from the date that it was
postmarked which necessitated a response from
petitioner by two weeks. Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure mandates that, in order, to protect the
court, the court should impose attorney fees upon any
behavior of bad faith.
The following Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
govern the entitlement of the attorney fees in
21
litigation: Rule 54.171[2]{clliJ] rules as _ follows:
“Liability for fees may be imposed on counsel or
litigant who acts in bad faith. When a party acts” in
bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive
reasons, “the court may employ its inherent equitable
power to award attorney fees as sanction. Such a fee
award is permissible under the bad faith exception to
the American Rule, and its purpose is to compensate
the wronged party, punish the wrongdoer, and protect
the integrity of the court”. See Association of Flight
Attendants v. Horizon Air Indus., Inc., 976 F.2d 541,
549 (9th Cir. 1992).
42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2503 rules as follows:
“American rule” provides that parties to litigation
are responsible for their own counsel fees, unless
otherwise provided by statutory authority, ... or
some other recognized exception. The above identified
Rule further categorizes “Right of Participants to
Receive Counsel Fees” in ten (10) distinct items
involving the different categories of litigation and the
item number nine (No. 9) covers the entitlement of
the attorney fees in private litigation as follow: “(9)
Any participant who is awarded counsel fees because
the conduct of the another party in commencing the
matter or otherwise was arbitrary, vexatious or in
bad faith.”. See Berg v. Georgetown Builders, Inc.,
2003 PA. Super 151, 822 A.2d 810 (2003); Thunberg v.
Strause, 545 Pa. 607, 682 A.2d 295 (1996);
Independent Oil and Gas Ass’n of Pennsylvania uv.
Pennsylvania Public Utility Com’n, 804 A.2d 693 (Pa.
Commw. Ct. 2002).
22
Plaintiffs have been liable for maliciously
abusing the legal process (see App. 18-19), in order to
delay the delivery of their service of their motion
beyond two weeks, by doing so, plaintiffs have further
committed a second crime by violating petitioner’s
due process rights involving petitioner’s postal prop-
erty (see App. 22). Consequently, petitioner Dr.
Bazargani strongly objects to providing such
plaintiffs with any reward specially with the reward
of attorney fees. On the contrary, pursuant to the
above argument petitioner Dr. Bazargani demands
for the cost of retaining her attorney (see App. 22).
Furthermore petitioner Dr. Bazargani objects to
the plaintiff’s supplemental Appendix which has not
been a part of the court record and petitioner has not
been provided with the copies of it previously and has
been introduced while plaintiffs have been filing their
Brief.
Respectfully submitted,
TAWOOS BAZARGANI, M.D., Pro Se
40 Old Lancaster Road
Merion, PA 19066
App. l
APPENDIX A
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.
No. 08-3435
KENNETH SNYDER; JACQUELINE SNYDER
V.
TAWOOS BAZARGANI; PAUL BAGHERPOUR
TAWOOS BAZARGANI, M.D.,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 02-cv-08845)
District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
MAY 1, 2009
Before: FISHER, JORDAN AND
VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 05, 2009)
OPINION
App. 2
PER CURIAM
Tawoos Bazargani, proceeding pro se, appeals
from two post-judgment orders of the District Court.’
For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the July
16, 2008 order of the District Court, and vacate its
March 3, 2008 order and remand the matter for
further proceedings.
In July 2005, following a jury trial in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Bazargani was found to have violated
the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the
Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.,
and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa.
Cons. Stat. Ann. § 951, et seg. Appellees Kenneth and
Jacqueline Snyder were awarded $40,000 in compen-
satory damages from Bazargani and her co-defendant
Paul Bagherpour, $30,000 in punitive damages from
Bagherpour, and $20,000 in punitive damages from
Bazargani. After Bazargani’s motion for a new trial
was denied, she appealed, and this Court affirmed
the judgment of the District Court. See C.A. 05-4051
(3d Cir. June 22, 2007). On December 13, 2007, the
District Court awarded Appellees $97,000 in attorney’s
fees and costs.
‘ In her notice of appeal, Bazargani indicates that she is
appealing from District Court’s July 16, 2008 order denying her
motion for reconsideration of its July 2, 2008 order. However, in
her informal] brief, she also addresses the March 3, 2008 order of
the District Court denying her November 7, 2007 motion for
contribution from her co-defendant
App. 3
On May 8, 2008, Bazargani’s South Philadelphia
condominium unit was sold to Appellee Kenneth
Snyder for $160,000 at a Marshal’s sale. The District
Court approved the sale and Appellees’ proposed
distribution of the proceeds of the sale by order dated
May 30, 2008. Pursuant to the Court’s order, the
remaining balance of $52,276 after distribution was
tendered to Bazargani via a check delivered to her by
certified mail. On June 25, 2008, Appellant filed a
document in the District Court entitled “Motion to
Object and Therefore, to Reject and Return the
Plaintiffs’ Attached Check.” The copy of the motion
served on Appellees’ counsel included the original
check tendered to Bazargani as her proceeds from the
Marshal’s sale. On the front and back sides of the
check, Appellant wrote: “Not Legally Valid, Refused
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.” In it, Bazargani argued
that because the judgment could have been satisfied
by the money in her bank account, the Marshal’s sale
was unnecessary and should be voided.
In its July 2, 2008 order denying the motion, the
District Court explained that after receiving a
judgment in their favor which was affirmed on
appeal, Appellees attempted to satisfy the judgment
from funds in Bazargani’s bank account. When they
were unable to do so, they levied upon certain real
estate which she owned. Bazargani was notified in
advance of the Marshal’s sale and had the opportunity
to participate in it but chose not to. Having received an
amount from the sale in excess of the judgment,
Appellees attempted to return the balance to
App. 4
Bazargani. As the District Court concluded: “The
pending motion reflects Dr. Bazargani’s continued
belief that her rights have been trampled upon, but it
is quite clear that she is in error. Since the judgment
against her has been upheld by the Court of Appeals,
since the Marshal’s sale was properly held, and since
all issues have been resolved by these previous
proceedings, the case is over. The pending motion will
therefore be denied.” On July 14, 2008, Appellant
filed a motion for reconsideration which the District
Court denied on July 16, 2008. Appellant timely filed
the instant appeal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. Because Appellant’s motion for recon
sideration and her appeal from the District Court’s
denial of that motion were both timely filed, we
review both the denial of the motion for recon-
sideration and the denial of the underlying June 25
motion objecting to the Marshal’s sale. See Jones v.
Pittsburgh Nat’l Corp., 899 F.2d 1350, 1353 (3d Cir.
1990). Because the District Court’s denial of
3azargani’s motion for contribution did not become
“final” for purposes of this appeal until the District
Court had completely disposed of the matter of
attorney's fees and satisfaction of the judgment, we
retain jurisdiction over that order as well. See Ohntrup
v. Firearms Ctr, Inc., 802 F.2d 676, 678 (3d Cir. 1986)
In her brief, Bazargani principally argues that
she did not receive a copy of Appellees’ January 22,
2008 motion for disbursement of funds until February
8, 2008. She seems to claim that this delay prevented
App. 5
her from timely responding to Appellees’ motion
However, the docket reflects that Bazargani did in
fact object to Appellees’ motion on February 14, 2008,
and the District Court explicitly considered her
objections in its order of February 28, 2008 granting
Appellees’ motion. Thus, it is unclear what the
significance of Bazargani’s objection is. Bazargani
also argues that Appellees violated her due process
rights by conducting a Marshal’s sale of her property
rather than collecting the money owed to them from
her bank account. However, Bazargani was properly
notified of the Marshal’s sale, which was properly
held in order to satisfy the judgment against her. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). Accordingly, there is no basis
on which to set aside this order.
Finally, Bazargani appeals from the District
Court’s March 3, 2008 denial of her November 20,
2007 motion for contribution from her co-defendant
Paul Bagherpour. The District Court failed to set
forth any basis for its denial of Bazargani’s motion.
We have held that there is a right to contribution
from joint tort-feasors under the Fair Housing Act.
See Miller v. Apartments & Homes of New Jersey, Inc.,
646 F.2d 101, 110 (3d Cir. 1981). Accordingly, we will
vacate the order entered on March 3, 2008 and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
Based on the foregoing, we will affirm in part and
5»
vacate and remand in part.
App 6
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
KENNETH SNYDER; JACQUELINE SNYDER
v.
TAWOOS BAZARGANI; PAUL BAGHERPOUR
TAWOOS BAZARGANI, M.D.,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 02-cv-08845)
District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
MAY 1, 2009
sSefore: FISHER, JORDAN AND
VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
JUDGMENT
This Cause came to be considered on the record
from the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey and was submitted pursuant to Third
App. 7
Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on May 1, 2009. On consideration
whereof, it is now hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that
the order of the District Court entered by July 16,
2008, be and the same is hereby affirmed, and the
order of the District Court, entered March 3, 2008, be
and the same hereby is vacated and this matter is
remanded for further proceedings. No costs will be
taxed. All of the above in accordance with the opinion
of this Court.
ATTEST:
/s/ Marcia M. Waldron
Clerk
Dated: May 5, 2009
App. 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH SNYDER and > CIVIL ACTION
JACQUELINE SNYDER
v.
TAWOOS BAZARGANI and.
PAUL BAGHERPOUR - NO. 02-8845
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Fullam, Sr. J. July 2, 2008
The defendant Tawoos Bazargani has filed a
document entitled “Defendant Tawoos Bazargani,
M.D.’s Motion to Object and Therefore, to Reject and
to Return the Plaintiffs’ Attached Check,” The
document is virtually incomprehensible, but the
underlying facts have been established in earlier
phases of this litigation. Plaintiffs obtained a
judgment against Dr. Bazargani. The judgment was
upheld on appeal to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals. Plaintiffs attempted to obtain satisfaction of
the judgment by levying on bank accounts held by
PNC, but the bank denied having any accounts in Dr.
Bazargani’s name alone. (Apparently, Dr. Bazargani
was one of two named depositers at PNC.)
Unable to collect their judgment from these bank
accounts, plaintiffs levied upon certain real estate
owned by Dr. Bazargani. The defendant received
notice of the Marshal’s sale, but did not participate.
The property was sold for a price in excess of the
App. 9
amount of plaintiffs’ judgment, and the balance was
returned by the Marshal to Dr. Bazargani (appar-
ently, $52,276). The pending motion reflects Dr.
Bazargani’s continued belief that her rights have
been trampled upon, but it is quite clear that she is in
error. Since the judgment against her has been
upheld by the Court of Appeals, since the Marshal’s
sale was properly held, and since all issues have been
resolved by these previous proceedings, the case is
over. The pending motion will therefore be denied.
An order follows.
App. 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH SNYDER and > CIVIL ACTION
JACQUELINE SNYDER
v.
TAWOOS BAZARGANI and _ .
PAUL BAGHERPOUR > NO. 02-8845
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of July 2008, upon
consideration of “Defendant Tawoos Bazargani,
M.D.’s Motion to Object and Therefore, to Reject and
to Return the Plaintiffs’ Attached Check,” and
plaintiffs’ response,” IT IS ORDERED:
That the motion is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ John P. Fullam
John P. Fullam, Sr. J.
App. 11
JNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-3435
Snyder v. Bazargani
To: Clerk
1} Motion by Appellant to Reconsider Clerk’s
Order Filed February 27, 2009 Granting Ap-
pellees Motion for Leave to File Supplemen-
tal Appendix
The foregoing motion is granted. The Clerk’s
order issued February 27, 2009 remains in effect.
For the Court,
/s/ Marcia M. Waldron
Clerk
Dated: April 17, 2009
MCW/cc: Thomas E. Groshens, Esq.
Tawoos Bazargani
App. 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH SNYDER and ;: CIVIL ACTION
JACQUELINE SNYDER
Vv.
TAWOOS BAZARGANT and =.
PAUL BAGHERPOUR - NO. 02-08845-JF
ORDER
(Filed Mar. 3, 2008)
AND NOW, this 3rd day of March 2008, upon
consideration of “Defendant Tawoos' Bazargani,
M.D.’s Motion to Demand for Compensatory Damages
From Co-Defendant of the Above Claim Pursuant to
the Court Order of October 24, 2007” (Document No.
129) and “Defendant Paul Bagherpour’s Motion to
Strike Defendant Tawooz Bazargani’s ‘Motion to
Demand For Compensatory Damages from Co-
Defendant’” (Document No. 131),
IT IS hereby ORDERED that the motions are
DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ John P. Fullam anae ae
John P. Fullam, Sr. J.
App. 13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH SNYDER and > CIVIL ACTION
JACQUELINE SNYDER
Ve
TAWOOS BAZARGANI and =:
PAUL BAGHERPOUR : NO. 02-cv-08845-JF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Fullam, Sr. J. October 24, 2007
After a jury trial, plaintiffs obtained a judgment
against both defendants for compensatory damages in
the sum of $40,000, and against the defendant
Bazargani for $20,000 in punitive damages. The
defendant Bazargani applied for a stay of the
judgment pending completion of her appeal to the
Third Circuit. Plaintiffs entered into a stipulation
with Dr. Bazargani which had the effect of staying
the judgment until the Third Circuit rendered its
decision.
The judgment was affirmed by the Third Circuit,
and, apparently, Dr. Bazargani has applied for a writ
of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United
States. She has now filed a “Objection to Plaintiffs’
Writ Of Execution In Reference To The Judgment
Entered Against Defendant In The Above Identified
Claim.” She contends, as I understand it, (1) that the
previously-granted stay of execution is still in effect;
(2) that the plaintiffs are improperly trying to collect
App. 14
from her the full amount of the judgment against her
($60,000), whereas she is liable for only one-half of
the compensatory award plus the punitive damages, a
total of $40,000; and (3) that the property plaintiffs’
have levied upon is worth much more than the
amount of the judgment, and that plaintiffs are
therefore acting improperly. None of these arguments
has merit. Both defendants are jointly and severally
liable for the $40,000 compensatory award (If
plaintiffs collect the full amount from Dr. Bazargani,
she would have the right to seek contribution from her
co-defendant for his one-half of the liability.) (emphasis
added). The previously-granted stay of the judgment
has expired. (If defendant wishes a further stay, she
will have to post security to cover her liability.) If
defendant’s property is sold at auction to pay off
plaintiffs’ judgment, plaintiffs can receive only the
full amount of their judgment: any excess would
remain the property of Dr. Bazargani.
An Order follows.
App. 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH SNYDER and : CIVIL ACTION
JACQUELINE SNYDER
Vv.
TAWOOS BAZARGANI and .:-
PAUL BAGHERPOUR - NO. 02-cv-08845-JF
ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of October 2007, upon
consideration of “Defendant Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s
Objection to Plaintiffs’ Writ of Execution In Reference
To The Judgment Entered Against Defendant In The
Above Identified Claim,” and plaintiffs’ response, IT
IS ORDERED:
1. The “Objection,” treated as a motion, is
DENIED.
2. The defendant Bazargani may obtain a
further stay of the judgment until final determination
of her pending application to the United States
Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari only by posting
security (in the form of cash or a corporate surety
bond) in the sum of $75,000 (to cover the amount of
the judgment plus possible accrual of interest until
the stay expires).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ John P. Fullam
John P. Fullam, Sr. J.
App. 16
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-3435
KENNETH SNYDER; JACQUELINE SNYDER
Vv
TAWOOS BAZARGANI; PAUL BAGHERPOUR
TAWOOS BAZARGANI, Appellant
On appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 02-cv-08845)
District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING WITH
SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Present: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, SLOVITER,
McKEE, RENDELL, BARRY, AMBRO,
FUENTES, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN,
and VAN ANTWERPEN,* Circuit Judges
The petition for rehearing filed by appellants in
the above-entitled case having been submitted to the
judges who participated in the decision of this court
* Vote limited to panel rehearing.
App. 17
and to all the other available circuit judges of the
circuit in regular active service, and no judge who
concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing,
and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in
regular active service not having voted for rehearing,
the petition for rehearing by the panel and the Court
en banc, is denied.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Kent A. Jordan.
Circuit Judge
Date: June 2, 2009
SLC/ce: Tawoos Bazargani
Thomas E. Groshens
App. 18
APPENDIX B
§ 23:117 Pa. R.C.P., Rule No. 1019(b) Malicious
abuse of process
_
The tort of abuse of process is concerned with a
perversion of the legal process, that is, the improper
use of process after it has been issued.’ A cause of
action exists where the original issuance of the
process was justified but the process itself was put to
an illegal use and thereby perverted and directed
toward a vici.m for a purpose other than that for
which the process was designed.” To establish a claim
for abuse of process it must be shown that the
defendant (1) used a legal process against the
plaintiff, (2) primarily to accomplish a purpose for
which the process was not designed, and (3) that
harm was caused to the plaintiff as a result.”
McGee v. Feege, 517 Pa. 247, 535 A.2d 1020 (1987); Garcia
Wall & Ochs, Inc., 256 Pa. Super. 74, 389 A.2d 607 (1978)
[Omitted In Printing)
[Omitted In Printing]
[Omitted In Printing}
App. 19
Typical forms of abuse of process include extortion by
means of arrest or criminal prosecution.’ Seizure or
deprivation of property is not an _ indispensable
element of the tort of malicious abuse of process.
In an action of malicious abuse of process, the
plaintiff should aver facts and circumstances which
indicate a malicious intentional perversion of the
process, whereas in an action of mere abuse of
process, the complaint is sufficient if the plaintiff
avers the abuse, for example, the unlawfulness of the
action taken, and resulting damages.’ Malice may be
averred generally. Legal malice is not limited to
motives of hatred or ill will, but may consist of a
defendant’s reckless and oppressive disregard of the
plaintiff’s rights.”
[Omitted In Printing]
McGee v. Feege, 517 Pa. 247, 535 A.2d 1020 (1987
[Omitted In Printing]
[Omitted In Printing]
[Omitted In Printing]
App. 20
39 § 3001 Postal Service Ch. 30
3. Right to use mails
The right to use the mails is a property right
which cannot be taken away except by due process of
law. Hoover v. McChesney, C.C.Ky.1897, 81 F. 472.
The Postmaster General has no power to make
any contract or agreement with any corporation,
partnership, or individual whereby such party shall
enjoy privileges in connection with the use of the
mails which are not granted to any other person who
complies with the terms interposed upon the party to
the contract. 1908, 27 Op.Atty.Gen. 49.
~
12. Seizure or detention of mail
The Postmaster General has no authority to
order the detention of mail matter after it has
reached its destination and been distributed by the
postmaster ready for delivery though there is a well-
grounded suspicion that it is or has been attempted to
be circulated in violation of law. 1872, 14
Op.Atty.Gen. 143.
App. 21
Federal Practice and Procedure (V-5C)
§ 1382. - Redundant, Immaterial, Impertinent,
or Scandalous Matter
Federal Rule 12(f) allows the district court to
strike, either on proper motion by a party or on its
own initiative, any redundant, immaterial, imper-
tinent, or scandalous matter in any pleading.
os x >
However, because federal judges have made it clear,
in numerous opinions they have rendered in many
substantive contexts, that Rule 12(f) motions to strike
on any of these grounds are not favored, often being
considered purely cosmetic or
4:
“time wasters,” there appears to be general judicial
agreement, as reflected in the extensive case law on
the subject, that they should be denied unless the
challenged allegations have no possible relation or
logical connection to the subject matter of the
1¢
controversy
[Omitted In Printing}
(Omitted In Printing]
{Omitted In Printing]
[Omitted In Printing]
App. 22
§ 2675 Costs Ch. 8
Rule 54
Gross negligence or obdurate conduct during the
course of an action by either defendant” or plaintiff”
also can support a finding of bad faith and justify an
award of attorney’s fees.
55. Bad-faith conduct by plaintiff
Sanctions were imposed on the basis of the
corporation’s subjective bad faith in its presentation
of the claim after finding that the corporation
deliberately avoided specifying its theories under-
lying claim and identified several contradictory
statements in the papers related to the claim.
Lockary v. Kayfetz, CA 9th, 1992, 974 F.2d 1166.
“ [Omitted In Printing]
{Omitted In Printing]
App. 23
APPENDIX C
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH SNYDER, : CIVIL ACTION
et al. : NO. 02-CV-8845
Plaintiff
VS. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
€ “ ~ 2 e
TAWOOS June 14, 2005
BAZARGANTI, et al.
Defendants . JURY TRIAL -DAYI
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN P. FULLAM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
And a Jury
APPEARANCES:
For the THOMAS A. SPRAGUE, ESQUIRE
Plaintiff: SPRAGUE & SPRAGUE
135 South 19th Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
For the RONALD H. BEIFELD, ESQUIRE
Defendant: 14 East Germantown Pike
Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania 19462
Deputy Clerk/ Rosalind Burton-Hoop
ESR Operator: Michael Baker
App. 24
TRANSCRIBED Drummond Transcription Service
BY: Haddon Heights, New Jersey 08035
Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording
transcript produced by computer-aided transcription
service.
11,127] T. Bazargani —Direct
* # *
BY MR. BEIFELD:
Q@. Dr. Bazargani, did you ever have a
conversation with Mr. Bagherpour in any way, which
brought up the subject matter of prohibiting a tenant,
because of their religious background?
A. Notat all.
Q. Did you have any knowledge at all, that Mr.
Bagherpour was asking a question about the religion
of the Snyders during the course of this application?
A. Not -: all, until — until he told me on
Saturday.
Q. And when he told you that, what did you —
what was your reaction?
A. What was my reaction to what?
Q. The fact that he mentioned he inquired as tc
the religion of the Snyders?
A. Okay. The — the question about the religion
has come up twice.
App. 25
First, it was my — my religion that has come and
Mr. Snyder —the first day, immediately after they
have walked in to building, he had learned through
the meticulous inquiry from Mr. Bagherpour, he has
learned my religion, that was the first time.
The second time, the conversation that has taken
place [1,128) between Mr. Snyder and Mr.
Bagherpour, he has reciprocated his question about
his religion.
THE COURT: Well, that’s nice —
@. So, what was your reaction?
THE COURT: -— but now, the question is,
when did you first learn of that?
THE WITNESS: It just was Saturday
morning when he told me.
BY MR. BEIFELD:
Q@. My question, I think was, did you think that
was proper or improper or it didn’t make any
difference or — what was your reaction to it?
A Ah, I thought that he should have not asked.
Q. Okay. Fair enough.
Why?
A. I just didn’t think that the religion has to do
anything with renting the apartment.
Q. Okay.
App. 26
Sd
[1,122] A. No. Once he told me that they came
to the property and why they were —the filling of the
application) — I learned that they have a dog. I said,
that is it.
Q. So, is it your testimony that no matter what
the Snyders would have added to the application,
such as the extra deposit and all those other
provisions, that would not have changed your mind,
is that your testimony?
A. Right.
THE COURT: Were you made aware that
they had offered an extra deposit?
THE WITNESS: I don’t remember when I —
involved the extra deposit was discussed. But I do
remember, I said, no pet, no matter what.
BY MR. BEIFELD:
Q. No matter what?
App. 27
Fri Dec 14 12:56:55 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
PHILADELPHIA, PA
Receipt No.
Cashier stevet
Tender Type CHECK
Check Number:
Transaction Type C
Case No./Def No. 1:02-CV-8845 / 0
DO Code Div No Acct
4666 1 604700
Amount $50000.00
$50,000 DEPOSITED INTO COURT REGISTRY
BY DEFENDANT, BAZARGANI
Fri Dec 14 12:58:13 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
PHILADELPHIA, PA
Receipt No.
Cashier stevet
Tender Type CHECK
Check Number:
Transaction Type C
Case No./Def No. 1:02-CV-8845 / O
App. 28
DO Code Div No Acct
4666 l 604700
Amount $25000.00
$25,000 DEPOSITED INTO COURT REGISTRY
BY DEFENDANT, BAZARGANI
App. 29
Certificate of Service
I, Thomas E. Groshens, Esq., hereby certify that
on this 22nd day of January, 2008, I caused Plaintiffs’
attached Motion for the Disbursement of Funds
Tendered to the Clerk and Deposited in the Registry
of the Court, together with supporting their Memo-
randum of Law and proposed form of Order, to be
filed and served via the Court’s ECF system, where
the documents are available for viewing and
downloading. I further certify that a copy of the
foregoing was sent by United States First Class Mail,
postage prepaid, to the following party and counsel of
record:
Tawoos Bazargani
40 Old Lancaster Rd.
Merion, PA 19066
Pro se
Ronald H. Beifeld, Esq.
14 East Germantown Pike
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Counsel for defendant Paul Bagherpour
/s/ Thomas E. Groshens
Thomas E. Groshens
App. 30
[POSTMARK JAN 22 2008]
FIRST CLASS MAIL
LAW OFFICES
SPRAGUE & SPRAGUE
SUITE 400
THE WELLINGTON BUILDING
135 Ss. 19TH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103-4909
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.
40 Old Lancaster Road
Merion, PA 19066
App. 31
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.
40 Old Lancaster Road
No.406
Merion, PA. 19066
Ms. Anita Hill
Post Master
17 Civic Circle
Merion Station, PA. 19006
February 9, 2008
RE: Mailing Problems [nvolving
The Firm Sprague & Sprague
Dear Ms. Hill:
I, Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. writing this letter to
inform you about a very serious mailing problem
involving a mail from the firm Sprague & Sprague
which was placed in my mail box yesterday (February
8, 2008) at the above address, and inexplicably the
above mentioned mail has been post marked January
22, 2008, that is, it was delivered 17 days past the
post mark date. The mail contains a very important
legal document which should have been responded
within two weeks from the mailing date that is by
February 5, 2008. The followings identify the mail
exactly as it was addressed: “Law Office, Sprague &
Sprague, Suite 400, The Wellington Building, 135 S.
19th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103-4909,
To: Tawoos Bazargani, M.D., 40 Old Lancaster Road,
Merion, PA. 19066.
Please respond myself immediately in writing (a
copy of the envelop is enclosed.
App. 32
Thanking you in advance for your consideration
in this matter.
Very truly yours
s/ 'T’. Bazargani, M.D
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D
MERION STATION
FEB 09 2008
USPS 19066-9998
App oo
MERION STATION POST OFFICE
[LOGO| UNITED STATES
POSTAL SERVICE
May 27, 2008
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D
40 Old Lancaster Rd
Apt. 406
Merion Station, PA 19066
Ms. Bazargani,
I am sending you this letter to make arrange-
ments for us to meet and discuss the problem you are
having with the mail. Please call me @ 610-664-1484
Monday-Friday 8:00-3:00
Anita Hill
Anita Hill
Merion Station Post Office
OIC
MERION STATION, PA 19066-9888
610-664-1484
FAX: 610-664-1938
App. 34
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D
10 Old Lancaster Road
No.406
Merion, PA. 19066
Ms. Anita Hill
Post Master
17 Civic Circle
Merion Station, PA. 19006
June 5, 2008
RE: Mailing Problems Involving
The Firm Sprague & Sprague
Dear Ms. Hill
This letter is in confirmation of our meeting on
June 5, 2008, at 12.00 noon in the above identified
address, when we discussed about my (Tawoos
Bazargani, M.D.) letters addressed to yourself (Ms
Anita Hill) and are dated February 9, 2008, March 5,
2008 and April 27, 2008. All above identified letters
are about the detailed documentations involving a
very serious mailing problems which has led in to
very serious violation of Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s
postal property. The above mentioned violation has
involved a mail which contained a legal paper and
was mailed from the law office of Sprague & Sprague
which was postmarked as January 22, 2008 but was
delivered to Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. (myself) by the
mail man on February 8, 2008, that is, seventeen(17)
days past the postmark date (see the above
mentioned letter of February 9, 2008 where the above
identified Post Office was admitted of the above
mentioned 17 days delay). The above documented
App. 35
mail which was mailed from the law office of Sprague
& Sprague and was delivered with seventeen (17)
days delay contained a legal paper which mandated a
Response by two weeks, that is, by February 6, 2008
and was for disbursement of $75,000.00 which was
endorsed by Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s bank. It is self
explanatory that, the violation of Tawoos Bazargani,
M.U.’s postal property, is a serious risk, including but
not limited to her, personally, socially, professionally
and economically which necessitates a thorough
investigation. Consequently, this letter is _ for
clarification of the fact that during our above
identified meeting, on June 5, 2008 you, in no
uncertain term, clarified that the above documented
mail which was mailed from the law office of Sprague
& Sprague was delivered to Tawoos Bazargani,
M.D.’s address by the above identified Post Office on
the very same day which was received, that was
February 8, 2008.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if there is
any further question.
/s/ 'T. Bazargani, M.D.
Very truly yours
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.
CC: Manager, Consumer Affair
App. 36
TRANSMISSION |
| VERIFICATION REPORT |
TIME _ : 06/09/2008 22:21
NAME: FEDEX KINKO’S 0293
FAX =: 215-561-5346
TEL:
SER. # : 000G6J234889
DATE, TIME 06/09 22:20
FAX NO./NAME 16106641938
DURATION 00:01:08
PAGE(S) 02
RESULT OK
MODE STANDARD
ECM
[LOGO]
FedEx Kinko's,
Office and Print Center
Fax Cover Sheet
Date June 9,2008
To:
Name Ms. Anita Hill
Company Post Master
Telephone
Fax
610-664-1938 _
App. 37
Number of pages 2_ (including cover page)
From:
Name Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.
Company
Telephone
Comments: Subject:
Defendant Tawoos Bazaragni’s Letter of
June 5, 2008 to Ms. Anita Hill, Post
Master of, Merion Station Post Office In
Reference to Post Master’s Clarification
That The Mail of January 22, 2008 was
delivered on the day that It Was
Received Which Was February 8, 2008
App. 38
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH and : Civil Action No.
JACQUELINE SNYDER, : 02-8845
Plaintiffs,
Vv. . Hon. John P. Fullam
TAWOOS BAZARGANI .
and PAUL
BAGHERPOUR,
Defendants.
WRIT OF EXECUTION
TO THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA:
To satisfy judgment, interest, and costs against
TAWOOS BAZARGANT, defendant:
(1) You are directed to levy upon property of the
defendant TAWOOS BAZARGANT and sell her
interest therein;
(2) Your are also directed to garnish and attach
the property of TAWOOS BAZARGANI not levied
upon in the possession of PNC Bank, PNC Bank
Building, 1600 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
as garnishee;
Property to be garnished and attached includes
any and all accounts, instruments, or securities,
maintained by TAWOOS BAZARGANI at PNC
Bank, including but not limited to PNC [Financial
App. 29
Account Number Omitted], and to notify the
garnishee that:
(a) an attachment has been issued; and
(b) The Garnishee is enjoined from paying
any debt to or for the account of TAWOOS
BAZARGANI and from delivering any
property of TAWOOS BAZARGANT or
otherwise disposing thereof.
(3) If property of the TAWOOS BAZARGANI
is not levied upon and subject to attachments is found
in the possession of anyone other than the named
garnishee, you are directed to notify him that he has
been added as a garnishee and is enjoined as above
stated.
Amount Due: $ 87,000 |
(Cost to be Added) §$
MICHAEL E. KUNZ
Clerk of Court
By: /s/ Kim Willams _ 1/23/08
Deputy Clerk
Seal of the Court:
App. 40
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH and
JACQUELINE SNYDER |
Plaintiffs | No. 02-8845
(Received
Apr. 17, 2008)
Ve
TAWOOS BAZARGANI and
PAUL BAGHERPOUR
Defendants
U.S. Marshals Service,
2110 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19106
Dear U.S. Marshal Office:
Enclosed please find “Defendar Tawoos
Bazargani. M.D.’s Objection To Plaintiffs’ Writ O:
Execution Issued On April 7, 2008 (about taking
action against defendant’s property at One Christian
St. Apt. No-43, Phila.) “the original of which has been
filed in the court.
CC: Regular Mail Very truly yours
‘s/ Tawoos Bazargani, M.D
Date April 17, 2007 Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.
4]
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.
40 Old Lancaster Rd
10.406
Merion, Pa. 19066
Thomas E. Groshens Esquire
Sprague & Sprague
Suite 400
The Williagton Building
135 South 19th Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19103-4909 April 16, 2008
RE: Kenneth & Jacqueline Snyder v. Tawoos
Bazargani and Paul Bagherpour, No.02-8845
Dear Mr. Groshens:
Enclosed please find a true and correct copy of
“Defendant Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s Objection To
Plaintiffs’ Writ Of Execution Issued On April 7,
2008”. The original of which has been filed with the
court.
Very truly yours
/s/ T. Bazargani, M.D.
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.
App. 42
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.
40 Old Lancaster Rd
No.406
Merion, Pa. 19066
Mr. Ronald H. Beifeld, Esquire
14 East Germantown Pike
Plymouth Meeting, PA. 19462 April 16, 2008
RE: Kenneth & Jacqueline Snyder v. Tawoos
Bazargani and Pau) Bagherpour, No.02-8845
Dear Mr. Beifeld:
Enclosed please find a true and correct copy of
“Defendant Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s Objection To
Plaintiffs’ Wnt Of Execution Issued On April 7,
2008”. The original of which has been filed with the
court.
Very truly yours
/s/ 'T. Bazargani,M.D. |
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.
[LOGO] PNCBANK
PNC Bank Building,
1600 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Re: Tawoos Bazargani MD
40 Old Lancaster Rd.
No. 406
Merion PA 19066
June 6, 2008
Dear Tawoos Bazargani MD:
Per your request please find the requested balance
information for your accounts on May 7, 2008.
ACCOUNT ACCOUNT MAY 7, 2008
NAME NUMBER BALANCE
Tawoos Bazargani MD Covered for xerox $4,939.12
Tawoos Bazargani MD [Financial Account $405.84
Number Omitted]
Fendoon and Tawoos $12,288.25
Bazargani MD
Tawoos Bazargani MD $72,932.24
Tawoos Bazargani MD Covered for xerox $4,881.87
Sincerely,
/s/ Lisa L. Folks
Lisa L. Folks
Branch Manager
App. 44
AFFIDAVIT
I, Mr. Feridoon Bazargani writing this affidavit
in reference to my join saving account at PNC bank
located at 1600 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsy!-
vauia, 19103, account number [Financial Account
Number Omitted], in order, to »uthorize my sister
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D., to utilize $12,288.23 deposit
present in the above identified saving account, in any
way and manner that she choose to and to spend the
above identified amount for any cause which is
feasible to my sister Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s
discretion. This authorization follows the prior oral
agreement between myself (Feridoon Bazargani) and
my sister (Tawoos Bazargani) about authorizing my
sister Tawoos Bazargani, M.D. in spending the total
of above identified amount present in the above
identified join saving account in any way and manner
that she choose to and to spend the above identified
amount for any cause which is feasible to my sister
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.’s discretion. I Feridoon
Bazargani, make this Affidavit subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date June 27, 2008 Mr. Feridoon Bazargani
/s/ F. Bazargani
SWORN before me at the Town
of Richmond Hill
In the Province of Ontario
This 30th day of June 2008
/s/ Homayoon Sanayei
A Commissioner, etc
App. 45
HOMAYOON SANAYE!
Barister & Solicitor, Notary Public
330 Highway 7 East Suite 511
Richmond Hill Ontario
L4B 3P8, Canada
App. 46
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D
40 Old Lancaster Rd
No.406
Merion, Pa. 19066
Mr. Thomas E. Groshens Esquire
Sprague & Sprague
Suite 400
The Willington Building
135 South 19th Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19103-4909
May 7, 2008
You have levied my entire bank accounts which I
have in PNC bank at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
because of your claim of the above identified case for
a total amount which far exceeds the judgments
amounts. Please be advised that my total deposits in
PNC bank located at 1600 Market Street, Phila-
delphia Pennsylvania suffices the amount subject to
levy this claim has been based upon the bank’s its
own calculation of total levies which were placed on
my accounts and my asset at the bank. Consequently
any action taken against my other properties will con-
sider the violation of deiendant Tawoos Bazargani,
M.D.’s rights and as harassment against defendant
for what the plaintiffs will be he!d responsible for any
and all defendant’s consequential camages.
kurther, please consider that your cooperation Is
expected involving the investigation about the safety
of my postal property in reference to your mail of
App. 47
January 22, 2008, therefore, the safety involving all
aspects of my life
Very truly yours
s/ T. Bazargani, M.D.
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D
Certified Mail With Return Receipt
No.7007-2560-000 1-5037-985 1
App. 48
| TRANSMISSION |
VERIFICATION REPORT
TIME 05/07/2008 16:51
NAME
FAX
TEL
SER.# :000F6J94138]1
DATE, TIME 05/07 16:50
FAX NO./NAME 2155616913
DURATION 00:00:36
PAGE(S) 02
RESULT OK
MODE STANDARD
ECM
(LOGO)
FedEx Kinko’s_.
Office and Print Center Fax Cover Sheet
FedEx Kinko’s At The Marriott/Phone: 215-923-2520
Fax: 215-923-2360/1201 Market Street, Philadelphia
PA 19107
Date May 7, 2008 Number of pages 2
(including cover page)
To: Krom:
Name Name
Mr. Thomas Groshens Tawoos Bazargani, M.D
Company Company
Sprague & Sprague
App. 49
Telephone Telephone
610-668-1064
Fax 215-561-6913
Comments Defendant Tawoos Bazargani,
M.D.’s Letter of May 7, 2008 to
Mr. Thomas Groshen’s Plaintiffs’ |
Attorney in Reference to Defen-
dant’s Amount Available in PNC
‘ Bank and The Plaintiffs’ Writ of
Execution of April 7, 2008.
= Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4
if Restricted Delivery is desired.
@ Print your name and address on the reverse so
that we can return the card to you.
@ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on
the front if space permits.
L Article Addressed to:
Mr. Thomas E. Groshens Esq.
Sprague & Sprague
Suite 400
The Willington Building
135 S. 19th St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-4909
2. Article Number 7007 2560 0001 5037 9851
(Transfer from service label)
PS Form 3811, February 2004 102595-02-M-1540
Domestic Return Receipt
ed
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DE
App. 50
LIVERY
A. Signature
X [Illegible] _— 4) Agent
(1 Addressee
B. Received by IC. Date of Delivery
(Printed Name) | Postmark May 12, 2008
D. Is delivery address different from item 1?
If YES, enter delivery address below:
1 Yes
1 No
3.
Service Type
Xx] Certified Mail LL) Express Mail
[] Registered LJ Return Receipt for Merchandise
(J Insured Mail LI) C.O.D.
|
|
4.
Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) [} Yes
App. 51
For delivery information visit our website at
www.usps.com® |
PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 |
OFFICIAL USE |
—_ |
Postage!/$ $0.41 0104
Certified Fee] $2.65 | PHILA PA 19104
ater | #32 M.O.F.W.
Return Receipt Fee $9.15 | Postmark
(Endorsement Required) Here
Restricted Delivery Fee $0.00 MAY 08 2008
(Endorsement Required) a 05/08/2008
USPS
Total Postage & Fees|$ $5.21 |
Sent To:
Street, Apt. No.:
or PO Box No. 1358S. 19th St., Suite 400
City, State, Z1P+4
Phila. Pa. 19103-4909
PS Form 3800, August 2006 See Reverse for
ae
Instructimms
BEST AVAILABLE COPY
App. 52
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.
40 Cld Lancaster Rd
No.406
Merion, Pa. 19066
Mr. Joel Gold
The PNC Financial Service Group
One PNC Plaza 249 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburg, PA. 15222-2707
May 7, 2008
RE: Kenneth & Jacqueline Snyder v. Tawoos
Bazargani and Paul Bagherpour, No.2-8845
Dear Mr. Gold:
As you are fully aware the above identified
plaintiffs have levied all my bank accounts in PNC
Bank. According to the report which I received from
PNC bank at 1600 Market Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania as of the above dates my total assets in
the bank is about one hundred and two thousand
dollars and another eighty five hundred has been
transferred to my PNC accounts will be liquidated by
next week. This amount exceeds the above identified
plaintiffs’ levy which per se is far above the amounts
of judgments plus the prior levies including that
outrageous amount which you claimed to withheld as
the garnishee fees.
Very truly yours
/s/ T. Bazargani M.D.
Tawoos Bazargani, M.D.
App. 53
Performance Money Market Account Statement
PNC Bank
Primary account number:
[Omitted In Printing]
Page 1 of 2
Number of enclosures: 0
For the period 04/22/2008 to 05/20/2008
FERIDOON BAZARGANI
TAWOOS BAZARGANI
|Home Address Omitted In Printing]
* *
Performance Money Market Account Summary
Account number: Covered for xerox
on
Other Deductions
Date Amount Description
04/30 5,642.14 Cashier Check/Legal
04/30 1,280.64 Cashier Check/Legal
App. 54
Certificate of Service
I, Thomas E. Groshens, Esquire, hereby certify
that on this 27th day of June, 2008, I caused a true
and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ attached Response to
defendant Bazargani’s Motion to be filed and served
via the Court’s ECF system, where the document is
available for viewing and downloading. I further
certify that copies was sent by United States First
Class Mail, postage prepaid, to the following:
Tawoos Bazargani
40 Old Lancaster Rd.
Merion, PA 19066
Pro se
Ronald H. Beifeld, Esq.
14 East Germantown Pike
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Counsel for defendant Paul Bagherpour
/s/ Thomas E. Groshens
Thomas E. Groshens
App. 55
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH & : CIVIL ACTION
JACQUELINE SNYDER > No. 02-8845
v.
TAWOOS BAZARGANT,
PAUL BAGHERPOUR
ARBITRATION AWARD
PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 53.2
(Filed Sept. 21, 2004)
AND NOW this 20th day of Sept., 04, was the
undersigned [Illegible] having been duly certified and
sworn and having heard the above captioned civil
action on September 20, 2004, do hereby make the
following award pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2:
We find in favor of the Plaintiffs in the
amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000)
against the Defendant, Paul Bagherpour,
only. We find in favor of Tawoos Bazargani.
/s/ (Ilegible] _ /s/ {Iegible]
Chairman Arbitrator
s/ Cheryl [{legible|
Arbitrator
App. 56
NOTICE
This award will become a final judgment of the
court without the right of appeal, unless a party files
with the court a demand for a trial de novo within
thirty days after the entry of the arbitration award.
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.