UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of March , two thousand one.

PRESENT:

JON O. NEWMAN, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

LISA CALKA, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. Nos. 00-7725(L), 00-7753

KUCKER KRAUS & BRUH, LLP, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, SAUL BRUH, CRAIG A. KRAUS, ALAN D. KUCKER, PATRICK K. MUNSON, SANTO GOLINO, JAMES R. MARINO, SABRINA B. ISAACS, JACK KUTTER, KATHLEEN F. LAMAR, NATIV WINIARSKY, JOSHUA C. PRICE, ANDREW D. BITTENS, JENNIFER A. ECKER, ROBERT S. ROSMAN, HIGH RETURN PROPERTIES, S.A., NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendants, HIGH RETURN PROPERTIES, S.A., INC., FRED BEGUIN, RENATA BEGUIN, SOUMI CHUU, YURI CHUU, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

FOR APPELLANTS-

CROSS-APPELLEES: SAUL D. BRUH, Kucker Kraus & Bruh, LLP, New York, NY.

FOR APPELLEE-

CROSS-APPELLANT: EDWARD S. KANBAR, New York, NY.

On December 21, 2000, this Court entered an order finding that plaintiff Lisa Calka had filed a frivolous and vexatious cross-appeal of the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Michael B. Mukasey, Judge) dismissing her civil RICO action against defendants. See Calka v. Kucker Kraus & Bruh, LLP, Nos. 00-7725(L), 00-7753, 2000 WL 1875847, at *1 (2d Cir. Dec. 21, 2000). We directed Calka and her attorney, Edward S. Kanbar, to show cause: (1) why they should not be sanctioned in the amount of double costs, as well as up to $5,000 for attorney fees, incurred because of the cross-appeal, and (2) why an injunction should not enter prohibiting them from filing any further suits in state or federal court regarding the matters at issue in the cross-appeal, unless they first obtain leave of court. See id.

Calka and Kanbar filed a timely response to the order, but we find that their response failed to show sufficient cause. Accordingly, Calka and Kanbar are hereby permanently enjoined from filing any further suits in state or federal court relating to the matters at issue in the cross-

appeal, unless they first obtain leave of the District Court, which shall be responsible for the enforcement of this injunction at the threshold. See In re Martin-Trigona, 9 F.3d 226, 229 (2d Cir.

1993); In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1263-64 (2d Cir. 1984). Nothing herein, however, shall apply to petitions for rehearing of the present decision by this panel or by the Court in banc, or shall be construed to limit Calka and Kanbar's access to the Supreme Court of the United States on any matter.

For the Court, Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk by