All files in the case P19-308: https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/search-results.php?sDocketSearch=P19-308&exact=1
===============================
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
HUNTER F. GRODNER, )
(now Summerlin) )
Plaintiff, )
)
FROM PITT COUNTY
v. )
13 CVD 398
)
ANDRZEJ GRODNER )
(now Andrew Grodner) )
Defendant, )
)
*******************************************
PETITION
FOR WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS AND
MOTION
FOR EX-PARTE TEMPORARY STAY AND
MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
*********************************************
(Electronically
submitted on 24 May 2019)
TABLE CASES AND AUTHORITIES
Cases
Cromer v.
Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir.2004) 18
In re
Carter, 235 Ga.App. 551, 552(1), 510 S.E.2d 91 (1998) 15
Rules
and Statutes
N.C. R.
App. P. 3(a) ........................................................... 2
N.C. R.
App. P. 23 ........................................................ 1,
20
N.C. R.
App. P. 27(b) ................................................... 2,
20
N.C. R.
Civ. P. 1A-1 Rule 6(e) ............................................ 2
N.C. R.
Civ. P. 1A-1 Rule 11 ............................................ 16
Other
N.C.
Const. art I § 18 (“Declaration of Rights”) ......... 14,
15
No. __________ DISTRICT
3A
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
HUNTER F. GRODNER, )
(now Summerlin) )
Plaintiff, )
)
FROM PITT COUNTY
v. )
13 CVD 398
)
ANDRZEJ GRODNER )
(now Andrew Grodner) )
Defendant, )
)
*********************************************
PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS AND
MOTION FOR EX-PARTE TEMPORARY STAY AND
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
*********************************************
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH
CAROLINA:
Defendant-Petitioner, Andrzej Grodner
("Defendant"), pursuant to R. App. Proc. 23 respectfully petitions this
Court to issue an ex-parte order for temporary stay and a writ of supersedeas
to stay enforcement of pre-filing injunction against him (“Gatekeeper Order”) entered
initially on 24 April 2019 (EXHIBIT A), then amended on 30 April 2019 (EXHBIT B),
then amended again on 8 May 2019 (EXHBIT C), where all versions, including 10
March 2019 draft of proposed Order prepared by Plaintiff’s counsel Jeffrey L.
Miller (EXHIBIT D), provide “that (…) ANY communications, service of documents,
or filings by Defendant with [(…) ANY
employee/administrator/staff of District Court and Clerk’s Office of Pitt
County] shall be by regular mail (…)” [emphasis added]. Moreover, the
most recent version also adds that any such communications, service of
documents, or filings shall be certified as “reviewed and approved by a licensed attorney
in the state of North Carolina.” Defendant, pursuant to N.C.G.S. 1A.6(e)
and R. App. Proc. 27(b), also asks this Court to extend deadlines for any
possible post-judgement Motions to be filed by ANY party once the Stay is
granted. Defendant filed Notice of Appeal on 24 May 2019 (EXHIBIT I).
Defendant-father alleges that extraordinary
circumstances exist to grant him reliefs sought without requesting them from
the trial court because under the restrictions set in Gatekeeper Order it is impossible for the Defendant to ask a trial
court for ANY relief, attend ANY hearing, serve ANY document, or even abide
by the 9 January 2015 Permanent Child Custody Order currently in effect without
being in contempt of court. In support of this Petition, Defendant-Petitioner
shows the following:
FACTS
The Plaintiff-mother and Defendant-father were
married on June 12, 2010, separated on February 13, 2013, and were divorced on
May 15, 2014. There was one (1) child born of the parties’ marriage, namely:
Lucas H. Grodner, born August 3, 2011. Pursuant to an Order entered on January
9, 2015, the Plaintiff was granted primary physical custody of the parties’
minor child with final decision-making authority, subject to a specified
schedule for the Defendant’s secondary custody and visitation. Pursuant to that
Order, the Defendant was required to communicate with the Plaintiff in writing about
various matters regarding execution of the 9 January 2015 Order as well as welfare
of the minor child.
On January 30, 2015, Defendant’s then attorney
of record, Teresa D. Bryant, filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Relief
concerning the 9 January 2015 Order. On February 19, 2015, the Court conducted
a hearing on a first Motion to Withdraw by Teresa D. Bryant and permitted her
to only represent the Defendant in pending equitable distribution trial. On
December 22, 2015, Defendant, Pro Se, filed
Notice of Limited Appearance and Amended
Motion for Reconsideration and Relief of the January 9, 2015 Order. The
hearing on Defendant’s motion was held on December 14, 2016 and the Order
denying reconsideration was entered on January 12, 2017. Defendant timely
appealed and on 7 August Court of Appeals issued its second opinion. The
Defendant petitioned North Carolina Supreme Court for both review based on the
constitutional issue (dismissed on 27 March 2019) and for discretionary review
(denied on 27 March 2019).
On 22 December, 2015, attorney Teresa D. Bryant
filed second Motion to Withdraw and on January 12, 2016, Defendant filed his Objection to Motion to Withdraw. On
January 19, 2015, a hearing was conducted on Teresa D. Bryant’s second Motion
to Withdraw. Teresa D. Bryant emailed Defendant her Proposed Order on 6
December 2016 and without waiting for any input from the Defendant the Court signed
and filed it on 13 December, 2016 allowing her to withdraw as Defendant’s
attorney. It included requirement that “Plaintiff’s attorney, Jeffrey L.
Miller, is able to communicate directly with Mr. Grodner regarding remaining
issues in the case and Mr. Grodner is able to communicate directly with Mr.
Miller via email only” (original emphasis). On 22 December 2016
Defendant filed Notice of Filing
Objections to Proposed Order to Withdraw and Proposed Changes.
On 30 September 2018 at 2:00pm Defendant sent
email to Jeffrey L. Miller (EXHBIT F) requesting explanation of a letter he
received from Faith Christian School (FCS) administrators which claimed that
Plaintiff-mother informed them that Defendant has no right to join his son
during school lunches despite provisions in the custody Order giving such right
to both parents (FCS letter EXHIBIT G). Defendant routinely visited his son at
lunches up to that point and at no point FCS administrators or staff indicated
any issues with such occurrences. The situation has gotten worse recently in
that the Defendant is currently not allowed to even see his son during Father’s
Lunch event or his graduation per Plaintiff’s representations made to FCS
Principal Eric Harris (EXHIBIT H).
To this day Jeffrey L. Miller have not responded
to Defendant’s request for explanation or take any action regarding Defendant
being denied his the right to see his son at school. Instead, on 11 October
2018 Jeffrey L. Miller transmitted electronic communications to Defendant which
in part stating "[if] you send me
another text or e-mail communication I plan to contact law enforcement. Any
further communications with me should be in writing in the form of a letter or
formal court document" (11:38am), and later: "I am delivering your text messages to law
enforcement. I am also reminding you to stop texting or e-mailing me"
(12:49pm).
On or about 11 October 2018 Defendant consulted
local law enforcement office and was told that nobody informed them of his text
messages to Jeffrey L. Miller. Moreover, in response to Defendant’s concerns
they directed Defendant to ask presiding Judge to resolve this issue.
Therefore, due to complete lack of cooperation from Jeffrey L. Miller and
threats of police, Defendant filed his 12 October 2018 Motion to Remove Opposing Counsel alleging that Jeffrey L. Miller
violated Rule. 4.1. of the Rules of Professional Conduct by willfully and
knowingly providing Defendant with false statements and asked Defendant to violate
13 December 2016 Order. Defendant further claimed that conduct by Jeffrey L.
Miller made it impossible for him to abide by any Court Order in the case.
Jeffrey L. Miller have not filed any responsive document to said Motion.
On 18 October 2018 Defendant served Notice of
Deposition and subpoena on Jeffrey L. Miller seeking an oral deposition. On
26 October 2018 Jeffrey L. Miller filed and served his Objection to the
Deposition and Subpoena and a Motion to Quash the Subpoena. On 2 November 2018
Defendant filed and served his Verified
Motion to Summary Judgement or in alternative, Motion to Compel Discovery. Defendant
contended he was entitled to a summary judgement granting the removal of
Jeffrey L. Miller as Plaintiff’s attorney because there was no issue of
material fact that Jeffrey L. Miller violated Rule 4.1 of the Rules of
Professional Conduct and because his conduct prevented the parties from
communicating with each other about important matters regarding the minor child.
Jeffrey L. Miller have not filed any responsive document to said Motion.
On 14 November 2018 a hearing was held on the
Defendant’s motions and Jeffrey L. Miller’s Objections and Motions to Quash. After
the hearing, on 16 November Defendant emailed Kay Brown, a Pitt County Family
Court Administrator, Connie Bland, an assistant clerk of court, Jeffrey L.
Miller, his legal assistant, Sandra Worthington in part stating that "if Judge Braddy continues to recite lies
that Mr. Miller is saying without thinking then there is no point of presenting
a legal argument in front of him.” Defendant contended that such conduct by
Judge Braddy leaves him no other choice but to ask for his recusal. Later that
day Jeffrey L. Miller emailed Defendant Proposed Order from 14 November 2018
hearing. On 27 November 2018 Defendant filed Notice of Filing Objections to Proposed Order Regarding 14 November
2018 Hearing.
On 28 November 2018 Jeffrey L. Miller filed
Motion to Modify and Limit Defendant’s Communications. On 11 December Defendant
filed Verified Response To Jeffrey L.
Miller’s Motion to Modify and Limit Defendant’s Communications alleging multiple
additional misrepresentations by Jeffrey L. Miller in his 28 November 2019 Motion
and attached almost 3000 pages of exhibits to support it. On 21 December 2018
Defendant filed Notice of Intent to Take
Deposition as part of his discovery to defend against 28 November 2019
Motion by Jeffrey L. Miller. After period of time without response from Jeffrey
L. Miller, on 4 January 2019 Defendant filed Notice of Deposition. On 9 January 2019 Jeffrey L. Miller filed Objection;
Motion to Quash; Motion for Protective Order; Motion for Attorney Fees.
On 4 December 2018, upon request from Judge
Braddy, Kay Brown (Pitt County case coordinator) filed a document which only
included Defendant’s 16 November email and noticed it for a hearing for 7
January 2019 in front of Judge Teague. On 21 December 2018 Defendant filed Verified Response to Court's Motion to
Recuse Judge Braddy at Request of Defendant Pursuant to His Email stating
under oath that he does not request recusal of Judge Braddy and he did not file
any such motion.
On 17 December, 2018 the Court entered its Order
from 14 November 2018 hearing denying the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgement and allowed Plaintiff’s Motions. As a result, on 27 December 2018 Defendant filed Rule 59 Motion alleging
that during 14 November 2018 Jeffrey L. Miller violated additional Rules of
Professional Conduct which denied Defendant a fair trial. On the same day Defendant
filed Notice of Hearing for his Rule
59 for already calendared hearing date of 7 January 2019 and issued Subpoenas to Jeffrey L. Miller,
Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s husband, and Judge Braddy for that hearing. On 2 January
2019 Jeffrey L. Miller filed “Objection; Motion to Quash; Motion for Attorney
Fees; Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions.” On 4 January 2019 Defendant filed Affidavit of Andrzej Grodner in Response to
Jeffrey L. Miller's Objection; Motion to Quash; Motion for Attorney Fees;
Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. Upon learning that his Rule 59 Motion will
not be heard on 7 January 2019, on 5 January 2019 Defendant filed Notice to Withdraw Subpoena to all
parties requested to appear at that hearing.
On 7 January 2019 Judge Teague held a hearing on
4 December 2018 document filed upon request from Judge Braddy which cited
Defendant’s 18 November 2018 email. Defendant did not appear. Present were
Jeffrey L. Miller and Anna Davis, representing Judge Braddy. Judge Teague
entered order on 8 January 2019. The Order recited some of the allegations by
the Defendant in which he claimed that the Court accepted Jeffrey L. Miller’s
lies as the truth. On 9 January 2019 Defendant emailed and filed Message from Defendant to Judge Teague
regarding 7 January 2019 hearing outlining his position on the Order.
On 11 January 2019 Jeffrey L. Miller filed “Objection;
Motion to Strike; Motion to Summarily Deny and Dismiss; Motion for Attorney
Fees and Sanctions; Motion for Pre-filing Restraint and Gatekeeper Order.” On
the same day Defendant filed Request for
Continuance which stated: “Persuant
to policy of prejudicial treatment against the Defendant in scheduling
hearings, which as of this filing has not been denied by Kay Brown and outlined
by Defendant’s email he sent her on 19 December 2018 at 3:19 PM (attached), the
Defendant fully anticipates that Jeffrey L. Miller will or has already
scheduled a mystery hearing. However, Def is not aware of it and thus is not
able to be present due to circumstances outside of his control.” Defendant
filed similar Requests on 18 January 2019 and 25 of January 2019, both of which
were denied on 25 January 2019 stating that “at this time there is nothing scheduled in this matter that would warrant
allowing Requests to Continue.”
On 1 February 2019 Defendant filed another Request for Continuance and on 5
February 2019 Jeffrey L. Miller filed Notice Hearing for 7 March 2019 in front
of Judge Hardison regarding “All pending
motions.” On 8 February 2019 Court denied Defendant’s 1 February 2019
Request for Continuance arguing that “at
this time there is nothing scheduled in this matter that would warrant allowing
Requests to Continue” even though at that time there was a hearing already
noticed and served by Jeffrey L. Miller.
On 13 February 2019 Defendant filed another Request for Continuance with exhibits
which stated: “Defendant objects to any
hearing involving Jeffrey L. Miller in any other capacity but a witness
because, starting with Cannon v. Miller (1983-attached), and resulting in Judge
Braddy’s removal (1/8/19), he continues to willfully and knowingly lie to court
officials and the ‘Court accepts Mr. Miller’s lies as the truth,’ all of which
prejudice against Def (email 2/4/19, 7:46AM-attached). Def requests hearing on this
Request for Continuance.” In email communication Defendant indicated to Ms.
Megan Hartzog that pursuant to Local Rules he requests short pre-hearing on his
Request for Continuance. On 1 March 2019 Defendant emailed Judge Hardison
directly and filed Message from
Defendant to Judge Hardison regarding 7 March 2019 hearing. All Defendant’s
legitimate requests were ignored without explanation, exactly as he alleged
regarding prejudicial treatment against him in scheduling hearings repeated and
never denied in his prior Requests for
Continuance.
On 25 February 2019 Defendant asked the clerk to
issue Subpoenas for both Jeffrey L.
Miller and Megan Hartzog to appear at the 7 March 2019 hearing and notify them
about it via email. Defendant offered that in alternative they can present
affidavits with statements regarding their communication about preparation and
filing of 8 January 2019 Order to remove Judge Braddy. On 28 February 2019 both
Jeffrey L. Miller and Megan Hartzog through her attorney Anna Davis, filed
Objections and Motions to Quash their respective Subpoenas. On 1 February 2019
Defendant filed said Subpoenas.
On 7 March 2019 Judge Paul Hardison presided
over the hearing which involved Defendant’s 13 February 2019 Requests for
Continuance, on Jeffrey L. Miller’s and Megan Hartzog’s Objections and Motions
to Quash of Defendant’s 25 February 2019 Subpoenas, on Defendant’s 27 December
2018 Rule 59 Motion, on Jeffrey L.
Miller’s 9 January 2019 Objection; Motion to Quash; Motion for Protective
Order; Motion for Attorney Fees, on Jeffrey L. Miller’s 11 January 2019 “Objection;
Motion to Strike; Motion to Summarily Deny and Dismiss; Motion for Attorney
Fees and Sanctions; Motion for Pre-filing Restraint and Gatekeeper Order.”
Defendant maintained throughout the hearing that
it should not continue because Jeffrey L. Miller continues to provide false
statements to the Court and the Court believes him, thus Defendant is being
prejudiced against. Defendant was denied the right to respond to Jeffrey L.
Miller’s Motion for Gatekeeper Order because Court determined that Defendant
was disrupting the Court by asking for Court’s understanding of its own rules
as to conducing the hearing, in particular, whether he can make his argument
without any interruptions by the Court. Judge Hardison have not addressed
Defendant’s requests and instead announced: “If you say another word, you’re
going to be in contempt ‘cause I’am tired of you disrupting Court.” (EXHIBIT E,
page 63-70). At the conclusion of the hearing Judge Hardison directed Jeffrey
L. Miller to prepare Proposed Order.
On 10 March 2019 Jeffrey L. Miller sent proposed
Order to Defendant via email. On 15 March 2019 Defendant filed Rule 8C-1.201 / 1A-1.58 Motion asking
the Court to take Judicial Notice that Jeffrey L. Miller misrepresented
material facts in his proposed Order and therefore asked the Court to
disqualify him from being involved in preparation of the Order or at least to amend
findings of fact in question. Defendant asked Megan Hartzog, Pitt County case
coordinator, for a hearing date so that he could file Notice of Hearing. On 22
March 2019 Defendant filed an email sent to Robin Bright, a case coordinator
for Judge Hardison in Onslow County, which in part stated: “[l]et me also put it on the record that
given what I have learned from my interaction with both Mr. Miller and Ms.
Davis it is my position that it would be improper for Judge Hardison to sign
any Order until we have a hearing on my Rule 201 Motion. I do plan to file this
email with the court at my earliest convenience to preserve this issue on appeal
should he enter anything before such hearing.”
Defendant never received a hearing date.
Instead, on 27 March 2019 Judge Hardison signed an Order appearing to quash
subpoena of Megan Hartzog but cited Rule 26 regarding discovery which was never
requested. Then, first version of the Gatekeeper Order was signed on 16 April
2019, filed on 24 April 2019, served on 23 April 2019. Second version of the
Order was signed on 24 April 2019, filed on 30 April 2019, served on 1 May 2019.
Third version of the Order was signed on 25 April 2019, filed on 8 May 2019,
served on 9 May 2019. All versions appear to derive from 10 March proposed
Order of Jeffrey L. Miller.
Since service on 13 March 2019 with the
Gatekeeper Order the Defendant contacted over 1000 attorneys and could not
locate a single one who was willing to provide a review of his documents. On 21
May 2019 Defendant filed a Motion for Temporary Stay with Court of Appeals (P19-308-1)
and on 23 May 2019 Court of Appeals ruled it requires the Defendant to file
Notice of Appeal to review his Motion (EXHIBIT I). On 24 May 2019 Defendant filed
Notice of Appeal with the District
Court of Pitt County (EXHIBIT J).
REASONS WHY WRIT
SHOULD ISSUE
Defendant-Petitioner is entitled to a stay
primarily because as naturalized US Citizen and resident of North Carolina he
is protected by the respective Constitutions in regards to due process and
access to the courts. It is a violation of Defendant’s rights for the Court to
set such excessive restrictions in Gatekeeper Order that they make it
impossible for him to use the court system to even defend himself against said
restrictions. The Gatekeeper Order was meant to put "restraint and
limitation on the Defendant's conduct and communications" (5/8/19 Gatekeeper
Order, Conclusion of Law #6), not to terminate them altogether as is the case presently.
Defendant cannot even notify the trial Court that he is not able to comply with
the Gatekeeper Order as well as other Orders that are in effect. Therefore, the
Defendant is likely to prevail on appeal to at least modify the Gatekeeper
Order into manageable form which is consistent with North Carolina statutes and
case law for the following reasons:
1. North
Carolina Declaration of Rights, Section 18 (N.C. Const. art I § 18) provides
that “Court shall be open. All courts
shall be open.” However, the Gatekeeper Order currently prevents the
Defendant to even go into the Courthouse because he can ONLY communicate with
ANY Pitt County Courthouse employee/staff/administrator via regular mail with
certification of an attorney. Therefore, even if Defendant were represented by
an attorney he would still not be able to go through the metal detector as he
would not be able to communicate verbally with the security officers manning
the entrance.
2. North
Carolina Declaration of Rights, Section 18 (N.C. Const. art I § 18) provides
that “every person for an injury done him
in his lands, goods, person, or reputation shall have remedy by due course of
law.” Even assuming justification for the Gatekeeper Order in that the
Defendant may be the worst pro se litigant in the North Carolina court’s history,
it was still required to restrict Defendant’s access to the courts in such a
way that it would preserve his constitutional right of due process. However, by
requiring the Defendant to seek and secure certification of an attorney, who
may refuse to provide his services for a good cause or for no cause at all, the
Gatekeeper Order improperly releases the courts from obligation to protect
Defendant’s right of due process by absolving “the court itself of
responsibility to examine the suits for frivolity or maliciousness”. In re Carter, 235 Ga.App. 551, 552(1),
510 S.E.2d 91 (1998).
3. North
Carolina Declaration of Rights, Section 18 (N.C. Const. art I § 18) provides
that “right and justice shall be
administered without favor, denial, or delay.” The Gatekeeper Order does
not deny Defendant a right to retain an attorney should it be financially
feasible for him, but presumes that there does exist an attorney in the state
of North Carolina who can provide such service to him in a timely fashion.
However, by including numerous and irrelevant findings of fact in the Gatekeeper
Order related to his interaction with his previous attorneys, such as Teresa
Bryant, the Gatekeeper Order effectively made it impossible for any him to even
retain an attorney In the recent days Defendant sent out over 1000 INDIVIDUAL
emails with approximately 5% response rate and all responses were cordial but uniformly
negative. He also signed up for referral services online, engaged in free
consultations, with the same negative result. Defendant does not claim that
there does not exist an attorney who can either provide certification for him
or represent him, but at this point it has proven impossible in practice.
4. N.C. R. Civ. P. 1A-1 Rule 11 provides
that “the signature of an attorney or
party constitutes a certificate by him that [filed document] is well grounded in fact and is warranted by
existing law or a good faith argument (…) and that it is not interposed for any
improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless
increase in the cost of litigation.”
a. Thus,
Rule 11 only regulates written documents in
the course of litigation between parties and does not regulate any communication that litigant may
have with others such as any and all employees of the Pitt County District
Court, as the Gatekeeper Order improperly asserts. For example, the Gatekeeper
Order limits Defendant’s ability to communicate verbally with the security
officers manning the entrance to the courthouse and effectively forbids him
from attending any hearings. Even if he somehow managed to clear that hurdle,
he could not ask to review his file at the Clerk’s office or even ask for
certified copies of the documents in his file for various purposes such as
filing this petition.
5. In
Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc.,
390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir.2004), North Carolina Federal Court held that in
preparing Gatekeeper Order “the judge must
ensure that the injunction is narrowly tailored to fit the specific
circumstances at issue. (…) Absent this narrowing, a prefiling injunction, like
any other injunction, will not survive appellate review.” Since custody and
divorce proceeding was initiated by Plaintiff, by setting a blanket
restrictions the Gatekeeper Order limits Defendant’s ability to defend himself and
protect the rights of the minor child in other legal matters initiated by
Plaintiff. The Gatekeeper Order is solely the result of Defendant’s 12 October
2018 Motion to Remove Opposing Counsel and thus at most the it should put
limitations on the efforts by the Defendant to remove opposing counsel but not restrict
him from ANY filing of ANY document in ANY District Court of North Carolina,
including for example possible defense in traffic violations, insurance claims
lawsuits, etc.
6. On
9 January 2015 a trial Court entered Permanent Child Custody Order which
included numerous provisions requiring parties to communicate in writing about
various matters related to the minor child. Beside the fact the Gatekeeper
Order forces Defendant to incur expenses to simply abide by the Custody Order
such as to notify Plaintiff-mother about his summer weeks or transfer to her
monthly child support payment, it harms the minor child because the Defendant
is not able to communicate with the Plaintiff about emergencies related to the
child or report to her about child’s welfare instantly as she may inquire.
7. The
Gatekeeper Order for reasons listed herein is not allowing the Defendant to
abide by various Rules of Appellate Procedure such as Rule 23 which requires to
include certified portions of the record, or Rule 27 which requires services on
the opposing counsel, among others.
8. During
the hearing Defendant was denied any opportunity to respond to any Motion by
Jeffrey L. Miller because, before Defendant’s allotted time was up, Judge
Hardison declared: “If you say another word, you’re going to be in contempt
‘cause I’am tired of you disrupting Court.” (EXHIBIT E, page 69).
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY STAY
Pursuant to Rule
23(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, Defendant respectfully
applies to this court for an order temporarily staying enforcement of the 8 May 2019 Gatekeeper Order. A temporary stay is
necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the Defendant while this Court determines
whether it shall issue its Writ of Supersedeas. Plaintiff relies on the arguments presented in
the foregoing Petition for Writ of Supersedeas in support of this Motion for
Temporary Stay.
CONCLUSION
Wherefore, the Defendant-Petitioner
respectfully pray this Court to issue is Writ of Supersedeas to the District
Court, Pitt County, staying the enforcement of its order above specified,
pending issuance of the mandate to this Court following its review and
determination of the appeal now pending; and that the Petitioner have such
other relief as to the Court may seem proper. Petitioner also requests that this Court
temporarily stay enforcement of the aforementioned Order until such time as
this Court can rule on Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Supersedeas.
Respectfully
submitted, this the 24th day of May, 2019,
_______________________
For Defendant-Petitioner Andrzej Grodner, pro
se
(currently
Andrew Grodner)
P.O.
Box 3571
Greenville,
NC 27836
Tel.
(252) 558-3040 agrodnercase@gmail.com
VERIFICATION
The undersigned pro
se Petitioner, after being duly sworn, says:
The
contents of the foregoing petition are true to my knowledge, except those
matters stated upon information and belief and, as to those matters, I believe
them to be true.
________________________
Defendant-Petitioner
Andrzej
Grodner, pro se
(currently
Andrew Grodner)
Pitt County, North
Carolina
Sworn to and
subscribed before me
This the ___ day of May,
2019.
______________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
_______
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that
a copy of the Writ of Supersedeas and Motion for Temporary Stay has been served
on all parties by depositing the same, enclosed in a postpaid, properly
addressed wrapper in an official depository under the exclusive care and
custody of the United States Post Office Department transmission addressed to
all counsel of record, as follows:
Miller and Audino, LLP
2510 E.
10th Street
Greenville,
NC 27858
Tel. (252)
493-6138
email:
jeff@milleraudino.com
Attorney
for Plaintiffs-Appellee, Hunter Summerlin
This is 24th day of May, 2019.
_______________________
Andrzej
Grodner, pro se
(currently
Andrew Grodner)
P.O.
Box 3571
Greenville,
NC 27836
Tel.
(252) 558-3040 agrodnercase@gmail.com
ATTACHMENTS
Attached to this
petition and motion for consideration by the Court are copies of the following
documents:
EXHIBIT A. Certified Copy of the Gatekeeper Order,
filed on 24 April 2019.
EXHIBIT B. Certified Copy of the Gatekeeper Order,
filed on 30 April 2019.
EXHIBIT C. Gatekeeper Order, filed on 8 May 2019.
EXHIBIT
D. Proposed Gatekeeper Order,
submitted by Jeffrey L. Miller on 10 March 2019.
EXHIBIT
E. Select pages of part of the
transcript from 7 March 2019 hearing regarding Gatekeeper Order.
EXHIBIT
F. Email from Defendant, Andrew
Grodner, to Plaintiff’s counsel, Jeffrey L. Miller, on 30 September 2018 at
2:00pm.
EXHIBIT
G. Letter from Faith Christian School
Administration to Andrew Grodner, attached to email on 30 September 2018 at
2:00pm.
EXHIBIT
H. Email from Erik Harris, principal
at Faith Christian School, to Defendant, Andrew Grodner, 16 May 2019 at 9:26am.
EXHIBIT I.
Order of the Court of Appeals, 23 May 2019.
EXHIBIT J.
Defendant-Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal filed on 24 May 2019.
