JOEL KLAPPER, a/k/a JOEL NORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and AT& T CORP., Defendants-Appellees. (2nd Cir. 2003)

Federal Circuits, 2nd Cir. (July 23, 2003)

Docket number: 02-9071

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/joel-klapper-verizon-communications-18535652
Id. vLex: VLEX-18535652

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - 28 USC 1291 - Sec. 1291. Final decisions of district courts

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Hilary Pridgen, in Her Individual Capacity as Shareholder & Director of Microbyx Corp., John Van Raalte, in His Individual Capacity as Shareholder & Director of Microbyx Corp., Hilary Pridgen and John Van Raalte, Nominally and Derivatively on Behalf of Microbyx Corp., Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. John Andresen, Defendant-Counter-Claimant, Constance Andresen, on Behalf of Herself and as Executrix of the Estate of John Andresen, and Microbyx Corp., a Nominal Defendant, Defendants-Counter-Claimants- Appellants-Cross-Appellees., 113 F.3d 391 (2nd Cir. 1997) in Her Individual Capacity as Shareholder & Director of Microbyx Corp., John Van Raalte, in His Individual Capacity as Shareholder & Director of Microbyx Corp., Hilary Pridgen and John Van Raalte, Nominally and Derivatively on Behalf of Microbyx Corp., Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. John Andresen, Defendant-Counter-Claimant, Constance Andresen, on Behalf of Herself and as Executrix of the Estate of John Andresen, and Microbyx Corp., a Nominal Defendant, Defendants-Counter-Claimants- Appellants-Cross-Appellees.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Transaero, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, an Agency or Instrumentality of the Republic of Bolivia, a Foreign State, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee., 162 F.3d 724 (2nd Cir. 1998)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER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 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 23rd day of July, two thousand and three.

PRESENT:

HON. GUIDO CALABRESI, HON. REENA RAGGI, HON. RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

JOEL KLAPPER, a/k/a JOEL NORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 02-9071

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and AT&T CORP., Defendants-Appellees.

JOEL KLAPPER, pro se, Brentwood, NY For Plaintiff-Appellant:

For Defendant-Appellee Verizon Communications, Inc.: RICHARD H. WAGNER (Bernadette Miragliotta on the brief) New York, NY For Defendant-Appellee ROBERT D. OWEN (Mark Bradford on the AT&T Corp.:

brief) Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., New York, NY Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Knapp, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED IN PART, and the appeal is DISMISSED IN PART for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Over a period of two decades, Joel Klapper has filed several unsuccessful lawsuits against the defendants. On April 29, 2002, Klapper brought a new action in the Southern District of New York, seeking to vacate, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), four of the prior judgments dismissing his claims, as well as an injunction issued in 1982 that bars him from bringing further suits on this subject matter. The district court (Knapp, J.) granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. In addition, it sanctioned Klapper for vexatious filing, charging him defendants'

attorneys fees. The court did not, however, determine the size of the fees to be charged.

The district court's sanction is not a "final decision" under 28 U.S.C. 1291, because the amount of the sanction has yet to be fixed. See Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.

proceeding to consider the district court's dismissal of the complaint).

A district court's ruling on a motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir.

1998). We have examined the record before us and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion.

We have considered all of Klapper's claims pertaining to the denial of the 60(b) motion and find them meritless. We therefore AFFIRM the denial of that motion and DISMISS, for want of jurisdiction, the part of Klapper's appeal dealing with the sanction.

For the Court, ROSEANN B. MACKECHNIE, Clerk of the Court by: