Rowe Entertainment v. William Morris Agency et al. (98-8272) -- Order from Judge Patterson...

2

Click here to load reader

description

Can you believe this judge? After ignoring substantial evidence of racial discrimination and anticompetitive exclusionary conduct seven years ago so that he could rule in favor of William Morris and CAA, Patterson has the audacity to write an Order chastising Rowe while he takes his sweet ass time to make a ruling on whether to reinstate his case given that all FOUR of Rowe's former attorneys have lied under oath about the existence of hundreds of emails that were discovered containing "nigger" and other racially derogatory terms. How coincidental is it that both of these adverse decisions were made on the same day?

Transcript of Rowe Entertainment v. William Morris Agency et al. (98-8272) -- Order from Judge Patterson...

Page 1: Rowe Entertainment v. William Morris Agency et al. (98-8272) -- Order from Judge Patterson Reprimanding Leonard Rowe [June 12, 2012]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------)( ROWE ENTERTAINMENT, et al.

Plaintiffs, - against ­

THE WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY INC., et al.

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------)(

ROBERT P. PATTERSON, JR., U.S.D.J.

On Saturday, June 8, 2012, the Court received an e-mail sent by Plaintiff Leonard Rowe

("Plaintiff') with a letter attached addressed to Michael Zweig. Esq. of Loeb & Loeb, LLP dated

June 4, 2012. On June 9, 2012, the Court received an additional e-mail from Plaintiff with a

letter attached addressed to Jeffrey Klein, Esq. of Wei1, Gotshal & Magnes, LLP dated June 4,

2012. The letters demand the withdrawal of affidavits filed in a case closed by judgments

entered by the Court on February 7, 2005. (ECF No. 676, 678.) Plaintiffs' appeal was denied by

the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (ECF No. 745.)

Plaintiff is reminded the only matter that the Court has under consideration is his motion

under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to reopen the case which was closed on

February 7, 2005, based on his claim of newly discovered favorable evidence which certain

attorneys representing him failed to disclose to Plaintiffs, or to other counsel representing

Plaintiffs during the prior litigation.

Since Plaintiffs motion under Rule 60(b) has not been granted, Plaintiff has no standing

at this time to try to use court procedures to further his cause or for discovery purposes.

Accordingly, the e-mailed letters to Weil, Gotshal & Magnes, LLP and Loeb & Loeb, LLP are

deemed a nullity and will not be considered by the Court. Plaintiff Leonard Rowe is being

98 CV 8272 (RPP)

ORDER

Page 2: Rowe Entertainment v. William Morris Agency et al. (98-8272) -- Order from Judge Patterson Reprimanding Leonard Rowe [June 12, 2012]

warned that during the pendency of this motion any further actions of this type will be

considered sanctionable.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York June ta., 2012

~~ff/LJ:Robert P. Patterson, Jr.

U.S.D.J.

Copies of this order were mailed to:

Leonard Rowe 5805 State Bridge Road, Suite 350 Johns Creek, GA 30097