Matthew Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine: Difference between revisions

From The Satanic Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
(adding appellate court case summary)
(adding more about decision)
 
Line 29: Line 29:
}}
}}


Lead counsel for The Satanic Temple [[Matthew Kezhaya]] is appealing case sanctions in the amount of $16,943.40 from 0:21-cv-00336-WMW ("[[Satanic_Temple,_The_v._Belle_Plaine,_City_of|Satanic Temple I]]").
Lead counsel for The Satanic Temple [[Matthew Kezhaya]] appealed case sanctions in the amount of $16,943.40 from 0:21-cv-00336-WMW ("[[Satanic_Temple,_The_v._Belle_Plaine,_City_of|Satanic Temple I]]").


=Appellate Court Case Summary<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66806046/804826251/1/matthew-kezhaya-v-city-of-belle-plaine/ CourtListener.com], Counsel Opinion Letter — Document #804826251, Attachment #1 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit</ref>=
On Aug. 25, 2023, the Eighth Circuit upheld the sanctions against Kezhaya.
Kezhaya represented The Satanic Temple, Inc., in its lawsuits against the City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota. The Temple sued the City on April 25, 2019, claiming that the City opened a limited public forum for a Christian monument, but closed the forum to exclude a Satanic monument. The Temple alleged violations of state and federal constitutions, as well as breach of contract and promissory estoppel.


Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings. On July 31, 2020, the district court granted the City’s motion in part and dismissed nine of the Temple’s ten counts “without prejudice” for failure to state a claim. The court permitted the Temple’s promissory estoppel claim to proceed.
==Appellate Court Case Summary<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66806046/804826251/1/matthew-kezhaya-v-city-of-belle-plaine/ CourtListener.com], Counsel Opinion Letter — Document #804826251, Attachment #1 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit</ref>==
:Kezhaya represented The Satanic Temple, Inc., in its lawsuits against the City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota. The Temple sued the City on April 25, 2019, claiming that the City opened a limited public forum for a Christian monument, but closed the forum to exclude a Satanic monument. The Temple alleged violations of state and federal constitutions, as well as breach of contract and promissory estoppel.


On December 1, 2020, after the district court’s deadline to amend pleadings, the Temple moved for leave to amend its complaint. The Temple’s proposed amendment sought to reassert its previously dismissed constitutional claims based on the Free Exercise Clause, Free Speech Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Temple also sought to add new counts alleging violations of the Establishment Clause and the Due Process Clause.
:Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings. On July 31, 2020, the district court granted the City’s motion in part and dismissed nine of the Temple’s ten counts “without prejudice” for failure to state a claim. The court permitted the Temple’s promissory estoppel claim to proceed.


On January 26, 2021, a magistrate judge denied the Temple’s motion for leave to amend, concluding that (i) the Temple had failed to show “good cause” to amend after the deadline, (ii) the Temple’s proposed amendments were futile on the reasserted constitutional claims, and (iii) it would be inappropriate to allow the Temple to assert the new constitutional claims at the late stage of the litigation. The magistrate judge also denied the Temple’s request to dismiss voluntarily its remaining promissory estoppel claim and to reassert its constitutional claims in a second lawsuit. The judge concluded that the City “would in fact be severely prejudiced if [the Temple] were permitted to reassert its claims anew in a second round of litigation.”
:On December 1, 2020, after the district court’s deadline to amend pleadings, the Temple moved for leave to amend its complaint. The Temple’s proposed amendment sought to reassert its previously dismissed constitutional claims based on the Free Exercise Clause, Free Speech Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Temple also sought to add new counts alleging violations of the Establishment Clause and the Due Process Clause.


Before objecting to the magistrate judge’s order, the Temple filed a second lawsuit in the district court on February 4, 2021. The second action reasserted the rejected constitutional claims, and added state constitutional claims based on provisions analogous to the federal Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause. The complaint acknowledged that its core factual allegations were the same as those underlying the Temple’s first lawsuit, and that a version of the complaint had been proposed and rejected as an amended complaint. The City moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by res judicata and for failure to state a claim. The City also moved for Rule 11 sanctions against Kezhaya.
:On January 26, 2021, a magistrate judge denied the Temple’s motion for leave to amend, concluding that (i) the Temple had failed to show “good cause” to amend after the deadline, (ii) the Temple’s proposed amendments were futile on the reasserted constitutional claims, and (iii) it would be inappropriate to allow the Temple to assert the new constitutional claims at the late stage of the litigation. The magistrate judge also denied the Temple’s request to dismiss voluntarily its remaining promissory estoppel claim and to reassert its constitutional claims in a second lawsuit. The judge concluded that the City “would in fact be severely prejudiced if [the Temple] were permitted to reassert its claims anew in a second round of litigation.”


On February 5, 2021, the City moved for summary judgment on the Temple’s remaining promissory estoppel claim in the first lawsuit. On February 9, 2021, the Temple objected to the magistrate judge’s order of January 26, 2021, regarding the motion for leave to amend. The Temple argued that it was “legal error” for the magistrate judge to determine that the amended complaint was “futile,” but argued that the motion for leave to amend was now “moot” because the Temple had filed a second lawsuit.
:Before objecting to the magistrate judge’s order, the Temple filed a second lawsuit in the district court on February 4, 2021. The second action reasserted the rejected constitutional claims, and added state constitutional claims based on provisions analogous to the federal Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause. The complaint acknowledged that its core factual allegations were the same as those underlying the Temple’s first lawsuit, and that a version of the complaint had been proposed and rejected as an amended complaint. The City moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by res judicata and for failure to state a claim. The City also moved for Rule 11 sanctions against Kezhaya.


On September 15, 2021, the district court issued a combined order addressing both lawsuits. In the first lawsuit, the court affirmed the magistrate judge’s order of January 26, 2021. The court ruled that the Temple failed to demonstrate “good cause” to amend its pleading after the deadline, and that the Temple’s proposed amendments to the constitutional claims were futile. The court also granted summary judgment for the City on the Temple’s promissory estoppel claim.
:On February 5, 2021, the City moved for summary judgment on the Temple’s remaining promissory estoppel claim in the first lawsuit. On February 9, 2021, the Temple objected to the magistrate judge’s order of January 26, 2021, regarding the motion for leave to amend. The Temple argued that it was “legal error” for the magistrate judge to determine that the amended complaint was “futile,” but argued that the motion for leave to amend was now “moot” because the Temple had filed a second lawsuit.


In the second lawsuit, the district court granted the City’s motion to dismiss and its motion for sanctions. The court cited both the doctrine of res judicata and the related rule against duplicative litigation. The court emphasized that rather than appeal the denial of the motion to amend in the first lawsuit, the Temple filed a “second frivolous lawsuit” that wasted the resources of the parties and the court.
:On September 15, 2021, the district court issued a combined order addressing both lawsuits. In the first lawsuit, the court affirmed the magistrate judge’s order of January 26, 2021. The court ruled that the Temple failed to demonstrate “good cause” to amend its pleading after the deadline, and that the Temple’s proposed amendments to the constitutional claims were futile. The court also granted summary judgment for the City on the Temple’s promissory estoppel claim.


The City sought $33,886.80 in attorney’s fees incurred by responding to the complaint in the second lawsuit and preparing the motion for sanctions. The court concluded that the Temple’s behavior, “including its repeated disregard of court orders, suggests that a mere reprimand from the Court would be insufficient to deter similar misconduct in the future.” The court determined that the rates charged by the City’s counsel were reasonable, but observed that a portion of the work was duplicative of the first lawsuit, and that the issues unique to the second lawsuit were not complex, novel, or difficult. The court thus reduced the requested amount by fifty percent, and ordered the Temple’s counsel to pay the City $16,943.40 under Rule 11(c).
:In the second lawsuit, the district court granted the City’s motion to dismiss and its motion for sanctions. The court cited both the doctrine of res judicata and the related rule against duplicative litigation. The court emphasized that rather than appeal the denial of the motion to amend in the first lawsuit, the Temple filed a “second frivolous lawsuit” that wasted the resources of the parties and the court.


Kezhaya appeals the sanctions order. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by (i) imposing sanctions, (ii) failing to consider non-monetary sanctions, and (iii) granting an arbitrary amount of sanctions.
:The City sought $33,886.80 in attorney’s fees incurred by responding to the complaint in the second lawsuit and preparing the motion for sanctions. The court concluded that the Temple’s behavior, “including its repeated disregard of court orders, suggests that a mere reprimand from the Court would be insufficient to deter similar misconduct in the future.” The court determined that the rates charged by the City’s counsel were reasonable, but observed that a portion of the work was duplicative of the first lawsuit, and that the issues unique to the second lawsuit were not complex, novel, or difficult. The court thus reduced the requested amount by fifty percent, and ordered the Temple’s counsel to pay the City $16,943.40 under Rule 11(c).
 
:Kezhaya appeals the sanctions order. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by (i) imposing sanctions, (ii) failing to consider non-monetary sanctions, and (iii) granting an arbitrary amount of sanctions.
 
==Sanctions upheld==
The Eighth Circuit opinion found that the test for duplicative litigation was satisfied because The Temple attempted to maintain two actions against the City based on the same facts. To the timeliness, the Court wrote, "Requiring the Temple to bring all claims in a timely manner does not constitute a denial of a full and fair opportunity to litigate them" and said that the proper recourse was to appeal the rulings to the district court or court of appeals rather than starting a new lawsuit.
 
The Eighth Circuit also found no abuse of discretion in the court’s monetary penalty against Kezhaya.


=Appeal Docket<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66806046/matthew-kezhaya-v-city-of-belle-plaine/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc CourtListener.com], Matthew Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine (22-2183), Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit</ref>=
=Appeal Docket<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66806046/matthew-kezhaya-v-city-of-belle-plaine/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc CourtListener.com], Matthew Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine (22-2183), Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit</ref>=

Latest revision as of 18:36, 30 August 2023


Matthew Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine
Filing Date 6/06/2022
Original Jurisdiction US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Plaintiff Matt Kezhaya; originally listed as "The Satanic Temple Inc."
Defendant City of Belle Plaine
Intervenor N/A
State Minnesota
Case# 0:22-cv-02183
Original Result Kezhaya sanctioned
First Appeal Affirmed (failure)
Second Appeal N/A
Final Result Affirmed (failure)

Lead counsel for The Satanic Temple Matthew Kezhaya appealed case sanctions in the amount of $16,943.40 from 0:21-cv-00336-WMW ("Satanic Temple I").

On Aug. 25, 2023, the Eighth Circuit upheld the sanctions against Kezhaya.

Appellate Court Case Summary[1]

Kezhaya represented The Satanic Temple, Inc., in its lawsuits against the City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota. The Temple sued the City on April 25, 2019, claiming that the City opened a limited public forum for a Christian monument, but closed the forum to exclude a Satanic monument. The Temple alleged violations of state and federal constitutions, as well as breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings. On July 31, 2020, the district court granted the City’s motion in part and dismissed nine of the Temple’s ten counts “without prejudice” for failure to state a claim. The court permitted the Temple’s promissory estoppel claim to proceed.
On December 1, 2020, after the district court’s deadline to amend pleadings, the Temple moved for leave to amend its complaint. The Temple’s proposed amendment sought to reassert its previously dismissed constitutional claims based on the Free Exercise Clause, Free Speech Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Temple also sought to add new counts alleging violations of the Establishment Clause and the Due Process Clause.
On January 26, 2021, a magistrate judge denied the Temple’s motion for leave to amend, concluding that (i) the Temple had failed to show “good cause” to amend after the deadline, (ii) the Temple’s proposed amendments were futile on the reasserted constitutional claims, and (iii) it would be inappropriate to allow the Temple to assert the new constitutional claims at the late stage of the litigation. The magistrate judge also denied the Temple’s request to dismiss voluntarily its remaining promissory estoppel claim and to reassert its constitutional claims in a second lawsuit. The judge concluded that the City “would in fact be severely prejudiced if [the Temple] were permitted to reassert its claims anew in a second round of litigation.”
Before objecting to the magistrate judge’s order, the Temple filed a second lawsuit in the district court on February 4, 2021. The second action reasserted the rejected constitutional claims, and added state constitutional claims based on provisions analogous to the federal Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause. The complaint acknowledged that its core factual allegations were the same as those underlying the Temple’s first lawsuit, and that a version of the complaint had been proposed and rejected as an amended complaint. The City moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by res judicata and for failure to state a claim. The City also moved for Rule 11 sanctions against Kezhaya.
On February 5, 2021, the City moved for summary judgment on the Temple’s remaining promissory estoppel claim in the first lawsuit. On February 9, 2021, the Temple objected to the magistrate judge’s order of January 26, 2021, regarding the motion for leave to amend. The Temple argued that it was “legal error” for the magistrate judge to determine that the amended complaint was “futile,” but argued that the motion for leave to amend was now “moot” because the Temple had filed a second lawsuit.
On September 15, 2021, the district court issued a combined order addressing both lawsuits. In the first lawsuit, the court affirmed the magistrate judge’s order of January 26, 2021. The court ruled that the Temple failed to demonstrate “good cause” to amend its pleading after the deadline, and that the Temple’s proposed amendments to the constitutional claims were futile. The court also granted summary judgment for the City on the Temple’s promissory estoppel claim.
In the second lawsuit, the district court granted the City’s motion to dismiss and its motion for sanctions. The court cited both the doctrine of res judicata and the related rule against duplicative litigation. The court emphasized that rather than appeal the denial of the motion to amend in the first lawsuit, the Temple filed a “second frivolous lawsuit” that wasted the resources of the parties and the court.
The City sought $33,886.80 in attorney’s fees incurred by responding to the complaint in the second lawsuit and preparing the motion for sanctions. The court concluded that the Temple’s behavior, “including its repeated disregard of court orders, suggests that a mere reprimand from the Court would be insufficient to deter similar misconduct in the future.” The court determined that the rates charged by the City’s counsel were reasonable, but observed that a portion of the work was duplicative of the first lawsuit, and that the issues unique to the second lawsuit were not complex, novel, or difficult. The court thus reduced the requested amount by fifty percent, and ordered the Temple’s counsel to pay the City $16,943.40 under Rule 11(c).
Kezhaya appeals the sanctions order. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by (i) imposing sanctions, (ii) failing to consider non-monetary sanctions, and (iii) granting an arbitrary amount of sanctions.

Sanctions upheld

The Eighth Circuit opinion found that the test for duplicative litigation was satisfied because The Temple attempted to maintain two actions against the City based on the same facts. To the timeliness, the Court wrote, "Requiring the Temple to bring all claims in a timely manner does not constitute a denial of a full and fair opportunity to litigate them" and said that the proper recourse was to appeal the rulings to the district court or court of appeals rather than starting a new lawsuit.

The Eighth Circuit also found no abuse of discretion in the court’s monetary penalty against Kezhaya.

Appeal Docket[2]

Matthew Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine | Appeal From: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Date PDF File Docket entry
06/06/2022 📄 Civil case docketed.

[5164660] [22-2183] (CBO) [Entered: 06/06/2022 11:56 AM]

06/06/2022 📄 Originating court document filed consisting of docket entries, order filed 5/24/2022, judgment filed 5/25/2022, and notice of appeal filed 6/2/2022.

[5164665] [22-2183] (CBO) [Entered: 06/06/2022 12:00 PM]

06/06/2022 📄 BRIEFING SCHEDULE SET AS FOLLOWS:

Transcript due on or before 07/18/2022. Appendix due 07/26/2022. BRIEF APPELLANT, The Satanic Temple due 07/26/2022 Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [5164666] [22-2183] (CBO) [Entered: 06/06/2022 12:01 PM]

06/06/2022 📄 1 pg, 107.08 KB APPEARANCE filed by Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant The Satanic Temple w/service 06/06/2022 [5164893] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 06/06/2022 06:52 PM]
06/07/2022 📄 APPEARANCE filed by Monte A. Mills for Appellee City of Belle Plaine w/service 06/07/2022 [5165177] [22-2183] (MM) [Entered: 06/07/2022 12:29 PM]
06/07/2022 📄 APPEARANCE filed by Katherine M. Swenson for Appellee City of Belle Plaine w/service 06/07/2022 [5165181] [22-2183] (KMS) [Entered: 06/07/2022 12:41 PM]
06/08/2022 📄 CLERK LETTER sent regarding new caption in case adding Matthew Kezhaya as appellant. [5165680] [22-2183] (CBO) [Entered: 06/08/2022 01:13 PM]
06/09/2022 📄 Originating court document filed consisting of district court receipt number 446411114302 in the amount of $16,943.40 issued to Kezhaya Law LLC. [5165939] [22-2183] (CBO) [Entered: 06/09/2022 08:44 AM]
06/10/2022 N/A RECORD FILED - MOTION TRANSCRIPT, 1 volumes, Comments: District Court document #57 [Copy do not return to the District Court at end of case], Source Location: USDC / MN, Dt. of Proceeding/Hearing: 04/27/2021, No. of Pgs.: 74, Court Reporter: Simpson, Lori Ann

[5166650] [22-2183] (STL) [Entered: 06/10/2022 01:12 PM]

06/10/2022 📄 APPEARANCE filed by Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 06/10/2022 [5166814] [22-2183]--[Edited 06/13/2022 by CRJ. COUNSEL HAS REFILED HIS APP FORM AFTER RECEIVING CASE CAPTION UPDATE. THE APP FORM FILED ON 6/6/2022 WILL BE LOCKED.] (MAK) [Entered: 06/10/2022 07:50 PM]
06/21/2022 📄 METHOD of appendix preparation filed by Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya - Separate Appendix - w/service 06/21/2022 [5169778] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 06/21/2022 05:22 PM]
06/21/2022 📄 STATEMENT of issues filed by Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya - w/service 06/21/2022. [5169791] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 06/21/2022 06:22 PM]
06/21/2022 N/A MOTION to add a party to this case., to dismiss, The Satanic Temple (plaintiff) , as a party to this appeal, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 06/21/2022. [5169793] [22-2183]--[Edited 06/22/2022 by CRJ. COUNSEL HAS REFILED MOTION TO INCLUDE EXHIBIT 1, SEE HISTORY# 5169794] (MAK) [Entered: 06/21/2022 06:46 PM]
06/21/2022 📄 MOTION to add a party to this case., to dismiss, (Add Greene Espel PLLP as creditor-appellee; dismiss The Satanic Temple as disinterested on appeal) , as a party to this appeal, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 06/21/2022. [5169794] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 06/21/2022 06:54 PM]
06/21/2022 📄 DESIGNATION of record filed by Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. w/service 06/21/2022 [5169795] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 06/21/2022 07:36 PM]
06/30/2022 📄 RESPONSE in opposition to motion add party, motion dismiss party [5169794-3] filed by Attorney Ms. Katherine M. Swenson for Appellee City of Belle Plaine , w/service 06/30/2022. [5173106] [22-2183]--[Edited 07/01/2022 by CRJ. Entry edited to remove duplicate link] (KMS) [Entered: 06/30/2022 01:49 PM]
07/06/2022 📄 JUDGE ORDER:Appellant’s motion to add Green Espel PLLP as an appellee is denied. The motion to remove the Satanic Temple as a party on appeal is granted. [5169794-2] Adp July 2022 [5174602] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 07/06/2022 02:31 PM]
08/14/2022 📄 MOTION for extension of time to file brief until 09/26/2022, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 08/14/2022. [5187152] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 08/14/2022 09:07 PM]
08/15/2022 📄 CLERK ORDER:Granting [5187152-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. Brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due 09/26/2022. Appendix due on 09/26/2022. [5187254] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 08/15/2022 09:28 AM]
09/22/2022 📄 MOTION for extension of time to file brief until 10/26/2022, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 09/22/2022. [5201147] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 09/22/2022 07:17 PM]
09/23/2022 📄 CLERK ORDER:Granting [5201147-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. Brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due 10/26/2022. Appendix due on 10/26/2022. No further extensions will be granted. [5201367] [22-2183] (AT) [Entered: 09/23/2022 12:33 PM]
10/26/2022 🔒 APPELLANT brief of Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya submitted for review. The time for filing the subsequent brief (if any) does not begin to run until the brief has been approved and filed. To open/view this brief, you must first login to CM/ECF and then open the document link in your Notice of Docket Activity. Only direct recipients on accounts can open this document. [5211983] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 10/26/2022 11:52 PM]
10/26/2022 🔒 Addendum of APPELLANT submitted for review by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. To open/view this addendum, you must first login to CM/ECF and then open the document link in your Notice of Docket Activity. [5211984] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 10/26/2022 11:53 PM]
10/27/2022 📄 Brief deficiency notice sent to counsel, Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. [5212079] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 10/27/2022 09:19 AM]
10/27/2022 📄 ADDENDUM of APPELLANT FILED by Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya , w/service 10/27/2022 [5212084] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 10/27/2022 09:25 AM]
11/02/2022 🔒 APPELLANT brief of Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya submitted for review. The time for filing the subsequent brief (if any) does not begin to run until the brief has been approved and filed. To open/view this brief, you must first login to CM/ECF and then open the document link in your Notice of Docket Activity. Only direct recipients on accounts can open this document. [5214356] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 11/02/2022 07:13 PM]
11/03/2022 📄 Brief deficiency notice sent to counsel, Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. [5214427] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 11/03/2022 09:31 AM]
11/03/2022 🔒 APPELLANT brief of Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya submitted for review. The time for filing the subsequent brief (if any) does not begin to run until the brief has been approved and filed. To open/view this brief, you must first login to CM/ECF and then open the document link in your Notice of Docket Activity. Only direct recipients on accounts can open this document. [5214561] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 11/03/2022 12:46 PM]
11/03/2022 📄 BRIEF FILED - APPELLANT BRIEF filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. w/service 11/03/2022 , Length: 7,732 words

10 COPIES OF PAPER BRIEFS (WITHOUT THE APPELLATE PDF FOOTER) FROM Matthew A. Kezhaya due 11/08/2022 WITH certificate of service for paper briefs. Brief of City of Belle Plaine due on 12/05/2022 [5214716] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 11/03/2022 04:30 PM]

11/04/2022 N/A Paper copies Appellant/Petitioner Brief, [5214716-2] filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya 10 paper copies received. w/Addendum attached

[5215404] [22-2183] (NDG) [Entered: 11/07/2022 11:32 AM]

11/07/2022 N/A RECORD FILED - APLNT/PET APPENDIX, 2 volumes, Comments: 3 copies of 2 volumes

[5215421] [22-2183] (NDG) [Entered: 11/07/2022 11:42 AM]

11/14/2022 📄 MOTION for extension of time to file brief until 01/04/2023, filed by Attorney Mr. Monte Mills for Appellee City of Belle Plaine w/service 11/14/2022. [5217786] [22-2183] (MM) [Entered: 11/14/2022 04:31 PM]
11/15/2022 📄 CLERK ORDER:Granting [5217786-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Monte Mills. Brief of City of Belle Plaine due 01/04/2023. [5217875] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 11/15/2022 08:46 AM]
01/04/2023 🔒 APPELLEE brief of City of Belle Plaine submitted for review. The time for filing the subsequent brief (if any) does not begin to run until the brief has been approved and filed. To open/view this brief, you must first login to CM/ECF and then open the document link in your Notice of Docket Activity. Only direct recipients on accounts can open this document. [5232818] [22-2183] (MM) [Entered: 01/04/2023 03:16 PM]
01/05/2023 📄 BRIEF FILED - APPELLEE BRIEF filed by City of Belle Plaine,

w/service 01/05/2023 , Length: 10,039 words

10 COPIES OF PAPER BRIEFS (WITHOUT THE APPELLATE PDF FOOTER) FROM City of Belle Plaine due 01/10/2023 WITH certificate of service for paper briefs. Reply brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due on 01/26/2023. [5232982] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 01/05/2023 10:11 AM]

01/09/2023 N/A Paper copies Appellee/Respondent brief, [5232982-2] filed by City of Belle Plaine 10 paper copies received.

[5234112] [22-2183] (NDG) [Entered: 01/09/2023 03:54 PM]

01/09/2023 N/A RECORD FILED - APLEE/RES APPENDIX, 1 volumes, Comments: 3 copies of 1 volume

[5234113] [22-2183] (NDG) [Entered: 01/09/2023 03:56 PM]

01/13/2023 📄 LETTER from Appellee City of Belle Plaine regarding availability for oral argument. w/service 01/13/2023 [5235941] [22-2183] (MM) [Entered: 01/13/2023 04:28 PM]
01/17/2023 📄 MOTION for extension of time to file brief until 02/10/2023, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 01/17/2023. [5236528] [22-2183]--[Edited 01/18/2023 by CRJ. Entry edited to add correct relief for extension request.] (MAK) [Entered: 01/17/2023 09:33 PM]
01/18/2023 📄 CLERK ORDER:Granting [5236528-3] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. Reply brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due 02/10/2023. [5236626] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 01/18/2023 09:20 AM]
02/01/2023 N/A Please note that this case has been screened for oral argument. The exact date of your oral argument has not been determined at this time. You will be receiving a calendar approximately 4 weeks before the scheduled argument date. Please review the current and future argument dates immediately to determine if you have any conflicts.

Click Here to View Published Argument Calendars and Future Court Session Dates and Locations

If you do have conflicts with any of the argument dates, please inform this court by sending a letter using the ECF docketing event 'Correspondence to Court', 'Letter filed' 'regarding availability for oral argument'. Your compliance with this policy will minimize the need for motions to continue or reschedule oral argument. The court also encourages you to notify the clerk if conflicts with these dates develop in the future. The clerk's office takes conflict dates into consideration in scheduling oral arguments but cannot guarantee that every request will be honored. [5241475] [22-2183] (MR) [Entered: 02/01/2023 03:15 PM]

02/01/2023 📄 LETTER from Appellee City of Belle Plaine regarding availability for oral argument. w/service 02/01/2023 [5241519] [22-2183] (MM) [Entered: 02/01/2023 03:52 PM]
02/06/2023 📄 LETTER from Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya regarding availability for oral argument. w/service 02/06/2023 [5242971] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 02/06/2023 09:36 PM]
02/10/2023 🔒 REPLY brief of Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya submitted for review. The time for filing the subsequent brief (if any) does not begin to run until the brief has been approved and filed. To open/view this brief, you must first login to CM/ECF and then open the document link in your Notice of Docket Activity. Only direct recipients on accounts can open this document. [5245073] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 02/10/2023 05:45 PM]

References

  1. ↑ CourtListener.com, Counsel Opinion Letter — Document #804826251, Attachment #1 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
  2. ↑ CourtListener.com, Matthew Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine (22-2183), Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Retrieved from "https://the.satanic.wiki/index.php?title=Matthew_Kezhaya_v._City_of_Belle_Plaine&oldid=17012"