; 75
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

75

VIEWS: 20 PAGES: 4

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.

More Info
  • pg 1
									      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
       luciacovelli@gmail.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)
trichardson@lewis-kappes.com




                                                4

								
To top