VIEWS: 20 PAGES: 4 CATEGORY: Federal Court POSTED ON: 2/25/2010
Judge Sarah Evans Barker, Dr. Barry Eppley, and Attorney Todd Richardson, of Lewis & Kappes are perpetuating an ongoing injustice in the Indiana federal courts designed to punish a disabled victim of poor plastic surgery for speaking the truth. These are the documents that outline this deceptive and malicious campaign to silence one of Dr. Eppley's most outspoken critics. Please go to www.suckssite.com to learn more.
Case 1:09-cv-00386-SEB-JMS Document 75 Filed 05/26/09 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION __________________________________________ ) DR. BARRY EPPLEY, MD, DMD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 1:09-cv-386-SEB-JMS ) LUCILLE IACOVELLI, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS Dr. Barry Eppley, MD, DMD, by counsel, submits this opposition to the motion for Rule 11 sanctions and supporting brief filed on behalf of defendant Lucille Iacovelli (Docket Nos. 72 and 73). The motion lacks merit and should be denied. The motion for Rule 11 sanctions has been filed on the theory that the Verified Complaint was inadequately investigated and insufficiently supported, even though the Court has already entered a Preliminary Injunction based on the opposite conclusion. In granting the Preliminary Injunction, the Court found that Dr. Eppley properly established a likelihood of success on the merits. The Court further found the claims raised by Dr. Eppley were properly supported by substantial evidence of record. Ms. Iacovelli failed to appear for the hearing, failed to present any opposing evidence, and failed to submit any cogent legal argument in opposition to the preliminary injunction motion. The motion for Rule 11 sanctions is flatly inconsistent with the properly supported determinations already made by the Court in granting the Preliminary Injunction. Case 1:09-cv-00386-SEB-JMS Document 75 Filed 05/26/09 Page 2 of 4 In nevertheless characterizing the Verified Complaint as frivolous and subject to Rule 11 sanctions, Ms. Iacovelli presents untimely factual arguments and legal contentions that might have been offered, but were not, in opposition to the preliminary injunction motion. The Court has already denied one motion seeking to vacate or dissolve the Preliminary Injunction and to strike the affidavits of counsel filed on behalf of Dr. Eppley. See May 18, 2009 Entry (Docket No. 68) ¶5. The Court further held an after-the-fact affidavit offered by Ms. Iacovelli was untimely and inadequate. Id. ¶4. The Rule 11 motion, similarly, is another untimely effort to challenge the grounds for the Preliminary Injunction. While moving for sanctions under Rule 11, Ms. Iacovelli and Mr. Bergeron 1 admit the grounds on which they should be sanctioned for violating the Court’s orders. The Rule 11 motion freely admits that Ms. Iacovelli and her associates have “willfully” violated the TRO and Preliminary Injunction. See Motion (Docket No. 72) ¶¶23-24; see also ¶65 (“even before the injunction issued, supporters of Lucille made it clear they did not intend to abide by it”). They admit they have tried to use their internet publications “to inspire the destruction of Dr. Eppley’s reputation.” See Brief (Docket No. 73) ¶31. They further admit they have responded to the litigation by attempting to use websites and internet publications to generate extra-judicial pressure, in order to combat what they describe as bias and prejudice against Ms. Iacovelli in this Court. Id. ¶¶2-3, 64. In short, the motion for Rule 11 sanctions contends Dr. Eppley’s claims are frivolous even though the Court has properly found a likelihood of success on those claims based on 1 The motion for Rule 11 sanctions and supporting brief, though signed by Ms. Iacovelli, were obviously drafted by Mr. Bergeron. See Fourth Affidavit of Counsel (Docket No. 45) Ex. B (Bergeron e-mail; “I will also be drafting an extensive Rule 11 Sanctions motion against you”); Sixth Affidavit of Counsel Ex. C (Bergeron e-mail forwarding Rule 11 motion and brief; “I have been working directly with Lucille on these documents”). 2 Case 1:09-cv-00386-SEB-JMS Document 75 Filed 05/26/09 Page 3 of 4 substantial evidence of record, and in seeking sanctions the motion and supporting brief simply provide additional grounds for the entry of sanctions against Ms. Iacovelli and Mr. Bergeron. Respectfully submitted, LEWIS & KAPPES By:/s/ Todd A. Richardson Todd A. Richardson (16620-49) One American Square, Suite 2500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46282 (317) 639-1210 Counsel for Plaintiff, Dr. Barry Eppley 3 Case 1:09-cv-00386-SEB-JMS Document 75 Filed 05/26/09 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 26, 2009, that the foregoing was filed electronically. Notice and service was sent to the following party via United States Mail, postage prepaid, this 26th day of May, 2009: Lucille M. Iacovelli 3 Deer Hollow Road Forestdale, MA 02644-1714 email@example.com s/Todd A. Richardson Todd. A. Richardson LEWIS & KAPPES, P.C. One American Square, Suite 2500 Indianapolis, Indiana 46282 (317) 639-1210 (tel), (317) 639-4882 (fax) firstname.lastname@example.org 4
Pages to are hidden for
"75"Please download to view full document