plaintiff's motion to transfer venue, (Motion of Law of International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Ronald Carey in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for an Order to Change Venue, Tusino v. IBT, 96 Civ. 2774 (Aug. 8, 1997)); and
WHEREAS according to the IBT, "plaintiff's motion, which is made more than one year after the transfer of this case to this Court, is frivolous and a waste of the time and resources of this Court and the parties," because: (1) "plaintiff's claim directly implicates the Consent Decree"; (2) under the Consent Decree, the All Writs Act, and their interpretive case law, this Court has jurisdiction over any lawsuit that implicates the Consent Decree; and (3) plaintiff himself does not deny that the issues underlying the instant case implicate the Consent Decree, id. at 1-2, 6-9; and
WHEREAS it is well settled that under the Consent Decree and the All Writs Act, this Court may enjoin all IBT members and affiliates from "filing or taking any legal action that challenges, impedes, seeks review of or relief from, or seeks to prevent or delay any act of the court officers appointed . . . pursuant to the Consent Decree in any court or forum in any jurisdiction except this Court," United States v. IBT, 728 F. Supp. 1032, 1039-40 n. 5 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 907 F.2d 277 (2d Cir. 1990); and
WHEREAS by Order dated April 10, 1996, Honorable Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, sua sponte ordered the instant litigation transferred to this Court and enjoined the plaintiff in the instant action from pursing the instant litigation in any forum other than this Court, Order, Tusino v. IBT, No. 96-49956-NMG (D. Mass April 120, 1996) ("the April Order")); and
WHEREAS in the April Order, Judge Gorton recognized this Court's authority to enjoin IBT members and affiliates from pursuing Consent Decree related litigation in any forum other than this Court, id. at 3; and
WHEREAS Judge Gorton then found that: (1) "plaintiff's Complaint and motion are based on allegations that the defendants have unlawfully attempted to impede the election campaigns of both the plaintiff and candidate Hoffa"; (2) that these allegations challenge the actions of officers appointed under the Consent Decree and, thus, implicate the Consent Decree; and (3) that the instant case should be transferred to this Court, id. ; and
WHEREAS in a decision dated June 21, 1996, this Court found that the allegations contained in plaintiff's Complaint "are properly the subject of an election protest" addressed to the Election Officer appointed by this Court pursuant to the Consent Decree, and that plaintiff's case therefore falls within this Court's jurisdiction under the Consent Decree, Tusino v. IBT, 928 F. Supp. 319, 331 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); and
WHEREAS this Court has reviewed plaintiff's papers, and finds that they are devoid of facts that would cause this Court to either question Judge Gorton's April Order or to reevaluate this Court's own decision; and
WHEREAS this Court also finds that plaintiff not only has failed to offer a convincing legal argument in support of his motion, but also has demonstrated a complete lack of familiarity with the extensive body of Consent Decree case law promulgated by this Court and the Second Circuit; and
WHEREAS this Court further cautions plaintiff's counsel that this Court tolerates neither frivolous motions nor shoddy lawyering, and that both practices are grounds for sanctions; and
WHEREAS accordingly, this Court finds that plaintiff's motion should be denied with prejudice;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff's motion to change venue is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
DATED: New York, New York
AUGUST 27, 1997
David N. Edelstein
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.