court document: ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO SERVE RECORD ON APPEAL

20190628.order.extending.time.pdf

Filed email requesting extension of time to serve proposed record on appeal

20190628.0952.filed.email.extension.of.time.pdf

Link: http://grodnermiller.blogspot.com/2019/06/grodner-v-grodner-13-cvd-398-urgent.html

P19-308 (COA): Order dismissing Motion for Extension to file proposed record on appeal without prejudice to refile it with the trial court

_docket.as.of.20190627.1518.ds-P19-308.pdf

=================

8 - M-EXT-PR () - 06-28-2019

Filed: 06-27-2019 @ 08:34:59

FOR: Petitioner-Appellant Grodner, Andrew Jan

BY : Mr. Andrzej Grodner

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 27th of June 2019 and designated 'Motion for Extension of Time to Serve

Proposed Record of Appeal' is dismissed without prejudice to refile with a showing that an initial thirty-day extension

of time to serve the proposed record on appeal has been obtained from the trial court. N.C.R. App. P. 27(c)(1).

By order of the Court this the 28th of June 2019.

P19-308 (COA): Motion for Extension to file proposed record on appeal

2019627.Motion.for.Extension.to.serve.prop.rec.COA-P19-308.Grodner.v.Grodner.pdf

on COA website

All files in the case P19-308: https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/search-results.php?sDocketSearch=P19-308&exact=1

=================

No. P19-308                                     DISTRICT 3A

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

*************************************************

HUNTER F. GRODNER,                )

     (now Summerlin)              )

          Plaintiff-Appellee,      )

                                  )         From Pitt County

     vs.                          )           No. 13-CVD-398

                                  )           

ANDRZEJ GRODNER,                  )         

     (now Andrew Grodner)          )         

          Defendant-Appellant,     )         

___________________________________)

*************************************************

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE

PROPOSED RECORD ON APPEAL

*************************************************

(Filed electronically 27 June 2019)

*****

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA:

     Defendant-Appellant Andrzej Grodner (currently Andrew Grodner), acting pro se, pursuant to North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure ("N.C.R.A.P.") Rule 2 and Rule 27(c), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time of forty five (45) days to serve proposed record on appeal on Jeffrey L. Miller, counsel for the Plaintiff, which means setting a deadline of 12 August 2019. In support of this Motion the Defendant-Appellant shows the following:

SUPPORT IN FACT

1. On 8 May 2019 trial Court entered Gatekeeper Order which set restrictions for the Defendant-Appellant regarding his representation as pro se litigant, which made it impossible for him to perform any required legal actions in the divorce case Grodner v. Grodner (Pitt County, 13-CVD-398), including but not limited to appeal of the Gatekeeper Order.
2. On 24 May 2019, and in violation of the Gatekeeper Order, Defendant-Appellant filed with the trial Court his Notice of Appeal from the Gatekeeper Order, pursuant to this Court's 23 May 2019 Order requesting him to do it, so that this Court can properly invoke jurisdiction to review the Orders. It means that proposed record on appeal is currently due to be served on Jeffrey L. Miller on June 28, 2019. It also means that this motion is properly and timely presented before this Court.
3. Also on 24 May 2019, Defendant-Appellant filed with this Court his Motion for Temporary Stay and Petition for Writ of Supersedeas to stay Gatekeeper Order and stated under oath that it is impossible for him to abide by it, including but not limited to the necessary legal steps he needs to take for his appeal. Jeffrey L. Miller, counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellee, did not respond to the Petition, did not indicate he intends to ever respond, and did not contact Defendant-Appellant about it.
4. On 29 May 2019 this Court denied Defendant-Appellant's Motion for Temporary Stay of the Gatekeeper Order which kept all of its restrictions in effect and thus prevented Defendant-Appellant from working on proposed record on appeal. For example, as a practical matter he could not go to the Courthouse and obtain copies of the documents from his file or contact Jeffrey L. Miller regarding preparation of the transcript, etc.
5. On 25 June 2019, over a month after filing Notice of Appeal and the filing of the Petition, this Court allowed Defendant-Appellant's Petition of Writ of Supersedeas and therefore ONLY FROM THAT DATE FORWARD the Defendant-Appellant was allowed to lawfully enter Pitt County Courthouse, contact Jeffrey L. Miller, and perform any other legal action necessary for him to work on perfecting record on appeal.
6. Defendant-Appellant contacted Jeffrey L. Miller regarding this matter, who as of filing of this Motion has been non-responsive. Thus, to the best of Defendant-Appellant's understanding, Jeffrey L. Miller at the very least does not oppose this Motion.
7. Defendant-Appellant is diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (A.D.H.D.), which is a mental impairment that substantially limits his major life activities, and which is specifically listed in Federal Statute 28 C.F.R. § 35.108(b)(2) as a "disability." Defendant-Appellant must take medication twice daily to manage some of the A.D.H.D. symptoms.

SUPPORT IN LAW

8. N.C.R.A.P. Rule 27(c) provides that for a good cause a party may once ask for an extension of time to serve proposed record on appeal for no more than 30 days in the Appellate Division.
9. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S. Code 12131-12134), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553), the ADA Amendments Act Final Rule (81 FR 53202, published Aug. 11, 2016), and its implementing regulations, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S. Code §701), provide that public entities, such as state Courts, are prohibited from discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities, and requires such public entities to make reasonable modifications to their policies accomodating needs of such individuals.
10. N.C.R.A.P. Rule 2 provides that Appellate Court may vary the "requirements or provisions of any of [N.C.R.A.P.] rules" to "prevent manifest injustice to a party," such as when an individual with a disability is not provided proper accommodations and thus is prevented from fully exercising his or her constitutional right to access the courts.
11. Therefore, Defendant-Appellant asks for a total of additional forty five (45) days extension, where thirty (30) days is provided by Rule 27(c), while additional fifteen (15) days is provided by special accommodations pursuant to Title II of the ADA Federal regulations. It means that new deadline would be 12 August 2019.

SHOWING OF PROPER PURPOSE

12. Since the entry of the 8 May 2019 Order, which is being appealed, Defendant-Appellant was not able to conduct any substantive work on the record on appeal for no fault of his own but rather due to the restrictions in the Gatekeeper Order which were only lifted two days, 25 June 2019.
13. Defendant-Appellant never before asked neither trial nor this Court for an extension of time to serve proposed record on appeal in this or any other case.
14. Defendant-Appellant contacted Jeffrey L. Miller in good faith, informing him of his intention to file this motion, and as of this filing he has been non-responsive and never indicated any opposition to this motion.
15. Defendant-Appellant is not acting for any improper purpose or to delay the resolution of this matter.

     WHEREFORE, Petitioner-Defendant asks for an extension of time to serve proposed record on appeal on Jeffrey L. Miller for additional forty five (45) days, which means new deadline would be 12 August 2019.

Respectfully submitted, this 27th day of June, 2019.

        /s/ Andrew Grodner    _   

Andrzej Grodner, pro se

(currently Andrew Grodner)

P.O. Box 3571

Greenville, NC 27836

252-558-3040

email: agrodnercase@gmail.com

Defendant=-Appellant, pro se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

     I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel of record by emailing and mailing a copy thereof by first-class mail, postage paid, and addressed as follows:

Mr. Jeffrey Miller, Esq.

Miller and Audino, LLP

2510 E. 10th Street

Greenville, NC 27858

252-493-6138

email: jeff@millerandaudino.com

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee

This the 27th Day of June, 2019.

        /s/ Andrew Grodner    _                      

Andrzej Grodner, pro se

(currently Andrew Grodner)

P.O. Box 3571

Greenville, NC 27836

252-558-3040

email: agrodnercase@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellant, pro se

P19-308 (COA): ORDER to dismiss Motion for Extension of Time without prejudice

20190626.COA.Order.Dismiss.Motion.to.Extend.Deadlines.P19-308.pdf

===================

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 24th of May 2019 and designated 'Motion for Extension of Time'is dismissed without prejudice to refile with a designation of which appellate timeline Defendant is seeking toextend along with a showing of good cause.

By order of the Court this the 26th of June 2019.

P19-308 (COA): ORDER allowing WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS in part and denying in part

20190625.Order.allowing.partial.Write.of.Supersedeas.P19-308.pdf

=============================

The following order was entered:

The petition filed in this cause by defendant Andrezj (Andrew) Grodner on 24 May 2019 and designated 'Petition for Writ of Supersedeas' is allowed for the limited purpose of entering the following order: The 'Amended Order' entered by Judge Paul Hardison on 8 May 2019 is hereby stayed in part with regard to petitioner's appeal taken in file number 13 CVD 398, Hunter Grodner (Summerlin) v. Andrezj (Andrew) Grodner. The Clerk of Superior Court of Pitt County shall accept for filing any documents submitted by defendant to perfect his appeal, and defendant shall be permitted to serve on opposing counsel any documents necessary to perfect his appeal. The portion of the order's decretal paragraph number nine restraining 'any communication' by defendant is also stayed. All remaining decretal provisions, including, but not limited to, those in paragraph nine restraining the service of documents or filings by defendant unrelated to defendant's appeal, are not stayed and shall be in effect during the pendency of the appeal. The petition is otherwise denied.

A copy of this order shall be mailed to the Chief District Court Judge and Clerk of Superior Curt for Pitt County.

By order of the Court this the 25th of June 2019.

The above order is therefore certified to the Clerk of the , Pitt County.