Author Topic: Philly Attorney's Play "Hardball"?  (Read 2362 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Philly Attorney's Play "Hardball"?
« on: February 02, 2009, 07:39:50 PM »
Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 96 Filed 01/08/2009 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION


:
Jill and Ron Ryan, et al., :
individually and on behalf of others :
similarly situated, :
:
Plaintiffs, : No. 2:06-CV-0146 (WCO)
:
-against:
Class Action
:
Hidden Lake Academy, Inc., et al., :
:
Defendants. :
:

MOTION AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF THE
SETTLEMENT CLASS REPRESENTATIVES TO ENFORCE
SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT



Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 96 Filed 01/08/2009 Page 2 of 9

The Settlement Class Representative1 plaintiffs, individually and on behalf
of the Class, respectfully submit this motion in support of their request that the
court order the Defendants to comply with the parties’ settlement Stipulation, and
actually pay the $400,000 Settlement Fund to which they agreed to pay.

In further support thereof, plaintiffs state as follows.

FACTS

1. On December 13, 2007, the parties entered into their settlement
Stipulation. The settlement Stipulation was filed with the court that same day.
2. By order filed March 6, 2008 (Doc. 89), the court preliminarily
approved the parties’ Stipulation; appointed a Claims Administrator and directed
that the Claims Administrator send notice of the settlement to members of the
Class; set July 3, 2008 as the deadline for Class members to opt out of the Class
and to file objections to the settlement; set August 1, 2008 as the deadline for Class
members to file claims forms to participate in the settlement; and set September 9,
1

All capitalized terms not otherwise defined have the meanings set
forth in the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement dated December 13, 2007 (the
“Stipulation”), which was filed with the court on December 13, 2007 (Doc. 85-3).
The Settlement Class Representative plaintiffs include Doff Meyer, Robin Brecker,
Walter Coles, Theresa Pines, Dr. Edward Roberson and Madeleine Roberson.

-2



Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 96 Filed 01/08/2009 Page 3 of 9

2008 for a final “fairness” hearing under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e) to consider whether
the court should grant final approval to the settlement.

3. In accordance with the court’s March 6, 2008 Order, the Claims
Administrator sent a total of 1,982 notices to Class members and other interested
parties who requested the notice.2 In response to the notice, no class member or
any other person filed an objection to the parties’ settlement.3 In addition, the
Claims Administrator received 243 claims from persons seeking to share in the
parties’ settlement. See Sincavage Decl. ¶ 10.
4. Also as part of the court’s consideration as to whether to approve the
parties’ settlement, the Defendants filed: (a) Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in
Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
(Doc. 86 filed Dec. 13, 2007), and (b) Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of
Settlement Class Representatives’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
2 See Declaration of Edward J. Sincavage, CPA Regarding
Dissemination of Notice to Class (Doc. 91-3 filed Aug. 22, 2008) (the “Sincavage
Decl.”) at ¶ 8.

3

See Joint Declaration of Michael J. Gorby and Lawrence J. Lederer in
Support of the Settlement Class Representatives’ Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and Motion of Class Counsel for Payment of Certain
Costs and Expenses (Doc. 90-3 filed Aug. 22, 2008) (the “Joint Declaration”) at
¶ 26. Accord Sincavage Decl. at ¶ 9.

-3



Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 96 Filed 01/08/2009 Page 4 of 9

Settlement (Doc. 92 filed Aug. 22, 2008). Defendants attached to their August 22,
2008 filing notices of the settlement given to 37 state Attorneys General and the

U.S. Attorney General in accordance with ¶ 12 of the parties’ Stipulation and 28
U.S.C. § 1715. These notices afforded these Attorneys General notice so that they
could file objections to the parties’ settlement. In response to these notices, the
Defendants stated in their August 22, 2008 filing that they did not receive any
objections. See Doc. 92 at p.3.
5. On September 9, 2008, the court held a hearing to consider whether to
grant final approval to the parties’ settlement. All parties appeared at the hearing.
No objectors appeared at the hearing.
6. On October 24, 2008 (Doc. 94), the court granted final approval to the
parties’ settlement. The court’s Order (at ¶ 6) specifically directed the parties “to
consummate the Settlement in accordance with the terms and provisions of the
Stipulation.” The court’s Order also provides (at ¶ 12) that the court retains
“[e]xclusive jurisdiction ... over all of the parties and the Class Members for all
matters relating to this Action, including the administration, interpretation,
effectuation or enforcement of the Stipulation ... .”
7. Paragraph 4(a) of the parties’ Stipulation provides as follows:
-4



Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 96 Filed 01/08/2009 Page 5 of 9

Settlement Consideration

4.
(a) In full and complete settlement of the Released Claims,
the Defendants shall pay the Settlement Fund on or
before December 31, 2008 into an account established by
Class Counsel for the benefit of the Class Members. The
Defendants, collectively and individually, are each bound
and obligated to timely pay personally the full Settlement
Fund.4
8. The Defendants have failed to pay timely to the Class the Settlement
Fund or any portion thereof.
ARGUMENT

Based on the foregoing facts, plaintiffs seek an Order directing that the
Defendants pay to the Class within 10 days from the date of the Order, by certified
funds, the full $400,000 Settlement Fund, plus interest and costs in an amount to be
approved by the court, or show cause why they should not be held in contempt and
sanctioned. See, e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 70(e) (“The court may also hold the disobedient
party in contempt.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(d)(1)(A) (providing that the court may issue
orders that determine the course of proceedings); Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc.

v. Watkins, 943 F.2d 1297, 1301 (11th Cir. 1991) (citing Shillitani v. United States,
4

Class counsel gave wire transfer instructions to Defendants’ counsel
on November 26, 2008.

-5



Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 96 Filed 01/08/2009 Page 6 of 9

384 U.S. 364 (1966)) (“There can be no question that courts have inherent power to
enforce compliance with their lawful orders through civil contempt.”); Abbott
Laboratories v. Unlimited Beverages, 218 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding
defendant in contempt for violating injunction in settlement agreement for which
court entered consent judgment). Indeed here, this court has exclusive jurisdiction
over all matters in this litigation, including the enforcement of the parties’
settlement Stipulation as noted above. Accordingly, this court has exclusive
jurisdiction to order the Defendants pay to the Class the Settlement Fund.

Plaintiffs also seek an Order to enforce the parties’ settlement to enable
plaintiffs to commence post judgment execution proceedings in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the event that the Defendants still fail to pay,
even upon imposition of sanctions and a finding of contempt. Rule 69 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the procedure regarding execution on a
federal court money judgment. Rule 69(a) provides:

In General.

 (1) Money Judgment; Applicable Procedure. A money judgment is
enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court directs otherwise.
The procedure on execution--and in proceedings supplementary to and
in aid of judgment or execution--must accord with the procedure of the
-6



Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 96 Filed 01/08/2009 Page 7 of 9

state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the
extent it applies.

 (2) Obtaining Discovery. In aid of the judgment or execution, the
judgment creditor or a successor in interest whose interest appears of
record may obtain discovery from any person--including the judgment
debtor--as provided in these rules or by the procedure of the state
where the court is located.
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 69(a).

In addition, Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a

judgment creditor a variety of remedies to seize property of a defendant:

Rule 64. Seizing a Person or Property.

(a) Remedies Under State Law--In General. At the commencement of
and throughout an action, every remedy is available that, under the law
of the state where the court is located, provides for seizing a person or
property to secure satisfaction of the potential judgment. But a federal
statute governs to the extent it applies.
(b) Specific Kinds of Remedies. The remedies available under this
rule include the following--however designated and regardless of
whether state procedure requires an independent action:
• arrest;
• attachment;
• garnishment;
• replevin;
• sequestration; and
• other corresponding or equivalent remedies.
-7



Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 96 Filed 01/08/2009 Page 8 of 9

Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 64.5

Plaintiffs also reserve all of their rights, including to seek that Defendants
pay their reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in seeking to enforce and
collect the Settlement Fund owed to the Class by the Defendants. See, e.g.,
Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Watkins, 943 F.2d at 1304 (affirming finding
of contempt and imposition of sanctions for judgment debtor’s failure to pay).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Settlement Class Representative Plaintiffs
respectfully request that the court order the Defendants to pay to the Class the
$400,000 Settlement Fund and interest and costs within 10 days, or show cause why
the Defendants should not be held in contempt and sanctioned.

5

In order to facilitate obtaining a writ of execution under Fed.R.Civ.P.
69(a)(1), plaintiffs have already served post-judgment discovery on the Defendants
to ascertain the location and existence of any property or holdings of the
Defendants. A copy of that discovery is attached.

-8



Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 96 Filed 01/08/2009 Page 9 of 9

Dated: January __, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. GORBY PETERS & ASSOCIATES,
LLC
/s/ Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq. /s/ Michael J. Gorby, Esq.
Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq. Michael J. Gorby, Esq.
mgorby@gorbypeters.com
Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq. (Georgia Bar No. 301950)
mpeters@gorbypeters.com
danziska@bm.net Telephone: (404) 239-1150
1622 Locust Street Fax: (404) 239-1179
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000

Fax: (215) 875-4604

Counsel for the Settlement Class Representatives and the Class

-9


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Philly Attorney's Play "Hardball"?
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2009, 10:11:30 PM »
(b) Specific Kinds of Remedies. The remedies available under this
rule include the following--however designated and regardless of
whether state procedure requires an independent action:
• arrest;
• attachment;
• garnishment;
• replevin;
• sequestration; and
• other corresponding or equivalent remedies.

 :cheers:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline psy

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 5606
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://homepage.mac.com/psyborgue/
Re: Philly Attorney's Play "Hardball"?
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2009, 02:45:43 AM »
Not quite as mean as my attorneys, but still pretty good.  The discovery should be interesting, if Bucci bothers to comply with that.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Benchmark Young Adult School - bad place [archive.org link]
Sue Scheff Truth - Blog on Sue Scheff
"Our services are free; we do not make a profit. Parents of troubled teens ourselves, PURE strives to create a safe haven of truth and reality." - Sue Scheff - August 13th, 2007 (fukkin surreal)

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Philly Attorney's Play "Hardball"?
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2009, 11:50:52 AM »
Quote from: "psy"
Not quite as mean as my attorneys, but still pretty good.  The discovery should be interesting, if Bucci bothers to comply with that.

"softball"...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Philly Attorney's Play "Hardball"?
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2009, 12:51:58 PM »
Submission of [96] MOTION Enforcement of Settlement and Judgment, submitted to District Judge William C. O'Kelley. on 02-03-09  So, now the Judge has the motion of Enforcement.
Well, now, let us see how long it takes Judge O'Kelley this time to rule and what he shall rule...he put discovery at a 'stay' last time...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline psy

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 5606
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://homepage.mac.com/psyborgue/
Re: Philly Attorney's Play "Hardball"?
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2009, 12:53:58 PM »
Quote from: "guest2"
Submission of [96] MOTION Enforcement of Settlement and Judgment, submitted to District Judge William C. O'Kelley. on 02-03-09  So, now the Judge has the motion of Enforcement.
Well, now, let us see how long it takes Judge O'Kelley this time to rule and what he shall rule...he put discovery at a 'stay' last time...
Does he usually wait until the last minute?  Shit... Must be a judge thing.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Benchmark Young Adult School - bad place [archive.org link]
Sue Scheff Truth - Blog on Sue Scheff
"Our services are free; we do not make a profit. Parents of troubled teens ourselves, PURE strives to create a safe haven of truth and reality." - Sue Scheff - August 13th, 2007 (fukkin surreal)

Offline psy

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 5606
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://homepage.mac.com/psyborgue/
Re: Philly Attorney's Play "Hardball"?
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2009, 10:40:35 PM »
Just recieved this in my inbox with a request to post ( see attached ).  I'll OCR the thing in the morning (if I forget, email me to remind me).[attachment=0:12xzlebi]98-1.pdf[/attachment:12xzlebi]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Benchmark Young Adult School - bad place [archive.org link]
Sue Scheff Truth - Blog on Sue Scheff
"Our services are free; we do not make a profit. Parents of troubled teens ourselves, PURE strives to create a safe haven of truth and reality." - Sue Scheff - August 13th, 2007 (fukkin surreal)

Offline psy

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 5606
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://homepage.mac.com/psyborgue/
Re: Philly Attorney's Play "Hardball"?
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2009, 11:51:28 AM »
And here is the OCR version with copy and paste-able text:
[attachment=0:2kzfsxqw]bucci_ocr.pdf[/attachment:2kzfsxqw]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Benchmark Young Adult School - bad place [archive.org link]
Sue Scheff Truth - Blog on Sue Scheff
"Our services are free; we do not make a profit. Parents of troubled teens ourselves, PURE strives to create a safe haven of truth and reality." - Sue Scheff - August 13th, 2007 (fukkin surreal)

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Philly Attorney's Play "Hardball"?
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2009, 01:11:16 PM »
4W4fFor those that are too lazy to open..."Hardball"..thanks PSY...


Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 98 Filed 02/02/2009 Page 1 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
Jill and Ron Ryan, et al.,
individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
Hidden Lake Academy, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
No. 2:06-CV-0146 (WCO)
Class Action
REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE
SETTLEMENT CLASS REPRESENTATIVES' MOTION
TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT
The Settlement Class Representative' plaintiffs, individually and on behalf
of the Class, respectfully submit this memorandum oflaw in further support of
theirmotion to enforce settlement and judgment (Doc. no. 96) (the "Motion"), and
in reply to the Defendants' opposition (Doc. no. 97) (the "Opposition").
All capitalized terms not otherwise defmed have the meanings set
forth in the parties' Stipulation of Settlement dated and filed with the Court on
December 13,2007 (the "Stipulation") (Doc. 85-3). The Settlement Class
Representative plaintiffs include DoffMeyer, Robin Brecker, Walter Coles,
Theresa Pines, Dr. Edward Roberson and Madeleine RobeCase 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 98 Filed 02/0212009 Page 2 of 8
ARGUMENT
A. Defendants Present No Basis to Oppose Proposed Order
The Defendants concede in their Opposition that they have failed to timely
pay to the Class the $400,000 Settlement Fund, and thus that they have violated the
parties ' Settlement and the Court's Order directing the parties to consummate the
Settlement (Doc. no. 94, Order and Final Judgment at ~ 6). Nothing in Defendants'
Opposition provides a basis to deny plaintiffs ' Motion for post-judgment relief -
which, in fact, actually affords the Defendants additional time to pay the
Settlement Fund.'
In circumstances far less compelling than here, courts have frequently
ordered parties to comply with the terms of settlement agreements. See, e.g.,
2 Specifically, the proposed Order plaintiffs submitted with their
Motion directs that Defendants pay the already past-due Settlement Fund within
ten days from the entry of the proposed Order, or show cause why they should not
be held in contempt and subject to sanction. (Doc. no. 96-2, ~ 1). The Order also
provides for a reasonable allowance of interest and costs in favor ofplaintiffs.
Accord Davis v. Whitford, 282 Ga. App. 143, 148, S.E.2d 849,853 (2006) (holding
that "interest on the principal amount of a judgment accrues until such amount is
paid"); see also 28 U.S.C. ~ 1961(a) ("Interest shall be allowed on any money
judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court.") . In any event, the issues of
possible contempt and sanctions are not at issue now, and indeed would only be at
issue if the Defendants fail to pay in accordance with the Order, and fail to show
Cause for such non-compliance.
-2-
._ -_•._.....•.._-------. ------~~-rson.

Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 98 Filed 02/0212009 Page 3 of 8
Resnick v. Uccello Immobilien GMBH, Inc., 227 F.3d 1347 (lith Cir. 2000)
(affirming motion to enforce the settlement agreement because defendant had
failed to timely comply with the terms of the agreement); Ramos-Gomez v.
Education Dev. Ctr., Inc., 164 Fed. Appx. 942,943-44 (11th Cir. 2006) (affirming
the district court's order requiring defendant to pay settlement fund).
Further, Defendants' Opposition actually provides additional support for
granting the post-judgment relief plaintiffs seek. In particular, in their Opposition
the Defendants state that they "intend" to pay the Settlement Fund at some
undetermined time in the future following some undefined alleged refinancing they
"intend" to take again at some undefined time in the future. See Opposition at p. 2.
They give no indication, or even any estimate, as to when the alleged refinancing
will take place; what specific steps the Defendants are undertaking to pursue the
refinancing; how much debt, equity and other assets they have; why they have not
made even a partial payment to the Class; and, even more fundamentally, how long
the Court and the Class are supposed to continue to wait.
Such gamesmanship should be no more comforting to the Court than it is to
the plaintiffs or the Class. Indeed, Defendants' Opposition does not even come
close to providing sufficient evidence supporting each Defendant's professed
-3-
~----- -----Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 98 Filed 02/0212009 Page 4 of 8
inability to pay anything "meaningful" (quoting defendant Buccellato's Jan. 19,
2009 affidavit at ~ 10) (Doc. no. 97). See Commodity Futures Trading Comm 'nov.
Wellington Precious Metals, Inc. , 950 F.2d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding
that burden of proving fmancial inability to comply was not satisfied where the
court found defendant's explanations unworthy ofbeliet); Accord In re Lawrence,
279 F.3d 1294, 1298 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701
(11th Cir. 1988) (holding that "alleged contemnor must produce detailed evidence
specifically explaining why he cannot comply") (citing United States v. Rylander,
460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983)).
B. Defendants' Purported Financial Status Is Insufficiently Documented
As noted, Defendants' mere assertions that they lack sufficient funds are
woefully incomplete. However, even if those assertions are true, they provide no
basis to deny plaintiffs the narrow and reasonable post-judgment relief plaintiffs
seek.
Defendants agreed to pay the $400,000 Settlement Fund to the Class more
than twelve months ago. Conclusorily asserting by affidavit that Defendants "have
worked diligently" to refinance HLA's properties during that time (quoting
Buccellato Jan. 19,2009 affidavit at 111), does not even give rise to a reasonable
-4-
~------Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 98 Filed 02/0212009 Page 5 of 8
excuse for their abject failure to pay, much less come close to providing a
sufficient evidentiary showing. Indeed, in the very next paragraph of his affidavit,
defendant Buccellato admits that he had initiated discussions with some
unidentified "new fmancial entity" only beginning in "early December 2008" -
again, despite having agreed to the Settlement, and being personally liable himself
to pay the amount in full, more than one year ago. [d. at ~ 12: Meanwhile,
defendant Buccellato says nothing about his own personal current financial assets,
and provides no facts whatsoever to update his October 3, 2007 affidavit and
Defendants' sworn accompanying fmancial disclosures which were included with
the parties' Settlement and filed with the Court on December 13,2007. See Doc.
no. 85-3. 3
Further, at no time during the interim twelve months did the Defendants
advise the Class, or (to plaintiffs' knowledge) the Court, that Defendants' financial
condition had deteriorated in any respect; in fact, plaintiffs received no
communication from the Defendants or their counsel during that time at all
) Although Defendants' prior financial disclosures have not been
updated, information as to the Defendants' current financial condition has been
formally requested through plaintiffs' post-judgment discovery request for the
production of documents (Doc. 96-4) and interrogatories (Doc. 96-5). Defendants'
responses to plaintiffs' post-judgment discovery requests are due February 9,2009.
-5-
._-------~_._-,--. ._--_._~---




Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 98 Filed 02/0212009 Page 6 of 8
concerning their fmancial condition or their intention to not make the required
payment. And, in direct contrast to their mere assertions that they are fmancially
imperiled, plaintiffs understand that defendant Buccellato has apparently started
two new residential boarding schools, Mountain Brook Academy and Creekside
Wilderness Academy, within the past several weeks - a fact completely omitted
from Defendants' Opposition. See http://www.creeksidewildernessacademy.com;
http://www.mountainbrookacademy.org. See also Commodity Futures Trading
Comm 'n., 950 F.2d at 1529 (the "inability to comply" defense requires noncompliant
party to produce sufficient evidence for its failure to pay). Indeed, these
.facts appear to contradict directly defendant Buccellato's assertion that Defendants
lack an ability to pay anything "meaningful" (quoting Buccellato Jan. 19, 2009
affidavit at ~ 10).
Along these lines, it bears emphasis that not just the HLA entities but each
ofthe Defendants - including defendant Buccellato personally - "collectively and
individually, are each bound and obligated to timely pay personally the full
Settlement Fund." Quoting ~ 4(a) of the parties' Stipulation (Doc. no. 85-3). See
also Order and Final Judgment (Doc. no. 94) at ~ 6 (directing the parties "to
consummate the settlement in accordance with the terms and provisions of the
Stipulation"); id. at ~ 12 (reserving exclusive jurisdiction for the Court "over all of
-6-

Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 98 Filed 02/0212009 Page 7 of 8
the parties ... for all matters relating to this Action, including the ... enforcement of
the Stipulation").
Despite the facts, plaintiffs' Motion provides the Defendants with even more
time to pay, or to show cause by making an actually proper evidentiary showing
concerning their professed inability to pay. See In re Lawrence, 279 F.3d at 1300
(holding that the inability to comply defense is not available where a party created
their own inability). Cf United States v. Hayes, 722 F.2d 723, 725 (11th Cir.
1984) (holding that evidence indicating "some effort" to comply does not rebut a
prima facie showing of a violation of a court order). This relief is both reasonable
and even narrow in view of Defendants' undisputed conduct here. And while
Defendants attempt to make much of it in their Opposition, the truth is that the
issue of sanctions and contempt is not now ripe - and may never be if the
Defendants either pay as plaintiffs seek, or make an actually proper evidentiary
showing."
But in no event should the Defendants be permitted to further string along
the Court or the plaintiff Class.
4 Along these lines, plaintiffs reserve all of their rights, including the
right to file involuntary bankruptcy petitions against each of the Defendants.
-7-
Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 98 Filed 02/0212009 Page 8 of 8
CONCLUSION
The Settlement Class Representative plaintiffs respectfully request that the
Court grant their motion for post-judgment reliefto enforce the parties' Settlement.
Dated: February 2, 2009
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
/s/ Lawrence 1. Lederer, Esq.
Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
llederer@bm.net
Lane L, Vines, Esq.
danziska@bm.net
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4604
Respectfully submitted,
GORBY PETERS & ASSOCIATES,
LLC
/s/ Michael 1. Gorby, Esq.
Michael J. Gorby, Esq.
mpeters@gorbypeters.com
(Georgia Bar No. 573595)
Two Ravina Drive, Suite 1500
Atlanta, Georgia 30346-2106
Telephone: (404) 239-1150
Fax: (404)239-1179
.Counselfor the Settlement Class Representatives and the Class
-8-
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Philly Attorney's Play "Hardball"?
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2009, 01:44:02 PM »
Well, it appears Berger and Montague are not walking away from the Buccellato 'shuffle'.  There was a new, fairly strong, filing by Berger and Montague on 04-29-09, which can be viewed on Pacer, until it is posted here.  It costs a pretty penny to try to enforce a judgement... especially against such an arrogant, narcissistic creep - it is time for Judge O'Kelley to step up to the plate.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline RobertBruce

  • Posts: 4290
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Philly Attorney's Play "Hardball"?
« Reply #10 on: May 03, 2009, 03:55:44 PM »
Take a look at this:

http://www.creeksidewildernessacademy.com/home/


Pictures look familar to anyone else? Could Buch be planning on using the old tried and true abusive facility method of closing one facility only to turn around and reopen it under a different name?

In addition what the hell is this?

http://www.mountainbrookacademy.com/#

???
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Philly Attorney's Play "Hardball"?
« Reply #11 on: May 03, 2009, 04:21:18 PM »
There are several Mountain Brook Academys, this one isn't his. Buccellato's is a subsidiary of his other school according to recent court papers.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »