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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
