Nevyas v Morgan Contempt Post Trial Motion

7/30/2019 Nevyas v Morgan Contempt Post Trial Motion

1/7

HERBERT J. NEVYAS, M.D., and : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

ANITA NEVYAS-WALLACE, M.D., and : TRIAL DIVISIONNEVYAS EYE ASSOCIATES, P.C., : Philadelphia County

Plaintiffs : NOVEMBER TERM, 2003

: NO. 946

vs. :DOMINIC MORGAN, and :

STEVEN A FRIEDMAN :

:

PROPOSED ORDER

AND NOW, this ____ day of _____, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant Morgans

Post-Hearing Motion and responses thereto, the Motion is GRANTED and:

1. This courts April 19, 2012 Orderis VACATED, and

2. Plaintiffs 11/29/11 Petition for Civil Contempt and Sanctions is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

__________________

Victor J. DiNubile, Jr., S.J.

Case ID: 03110

18 MAY 2012 10:27 am

M. COVIN

Control No.: 1205


2/7

Dominic J. Morgan, pro se & in forma pauperisPO Box 1011Marlton, NJ 08053

(610) 364-3367

_________________________________________

HERBERT J. NEVYAS, M.D., and : COURT OF COMMON PLEASANITA NEVYAS-WALLACE, M.D., and : TRIAL DIVISION

NEVYAS EYE ASSOCIATES, P.C., : Philadelphia County

Plaintiffs : NOVEMBER TERM, 2003: NO. 946

vs. :

DOMINIC MORGAN, and :STEVEN A FRIEDMAN :

Defendants :

DEFENDANT MORGANS POST-HEARING MOTION - THE TRIAL COURTS APRIL 19,2012

ORDER VIOLATES

PA

.R.A.P.1701

1. The trial courts March 16, 2011 verdict, quoted below, found insufficient proof of any

defamatory material not withdrawn years earlier.

This Court finds that the material published by Morgan was defamatory and thathe had previously agreed to withdraw it [in 2003] from the various websites and

to refrain from making further publications. Morgan has maintained that he has

not breached this agreement. This court finds that there was insufficient proof thatthere was a breach of this agreement. In order to protect the Plaintiffs in the

future, however, this court has issued an injunctive order....

March 16, 2011 verdict at FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF

LAW 10 (underlining added).

2. The trial courts April 28, 2011 Order, quoted below, says the defamatory material was

all removed by 2005, if not by 2003.

Plaintiffs maintain that this Courts injunctive Order against Morgan wasambiguous. This Court respectfully disagrees. A reading of the injunctive Order,

coupled with the findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, make it clear that

Morgans publications in the summer of 2003 were defamatory and that Morgan

and the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement shortly thereafter, in which Morganagreed to discontinue the publication of the defamatory material. In 2005, Judge

Maier found that a valid settlement agreement existed, which was affirmed by the

Superior Court. This Court has confirmed the previous rulings precluding

publication of subsequent defamatory material. Paragraph Ten of this CourtsAdditional Findings of Fact states that there has been no proof of subsequent

violations, at least since the hearing by Judge Maier. Whether Morgan breached

Case ID: 03110

Control No.: 1205


3/7

the Settlement Agreement prior to the hearing before Judge Maier does not, in any

way, affect the legal significance of this Courts injunctive Order.April 28, 2011 Order at 1 (underlining added).

3. The trial courts June 17, 2011 Opinion for the Superior Court, quoted below, says the

defamatory material was all removed by 2005, if not by 2003.

Plaintiffs also argue on appeal that this Courts injunctive Order against Morganwas ambiguous. This Court respectfully disagrees. A reading of the injunctive

Order, coupled with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, make it clear

that Morgans publications in the summer of 2003 were defamatory and that

Morgan and Plaintiffs entered into an agreement shortly thereafter, in which

Morgan agreed to discontinue the publication of the defamatory material. In 2005,

Judge Maier found that a valid settlement agreement existed, which was affirmed

by the Superior Court. This Court has confirmed the previous rulings precludingpublication of subsequent defamatory material. Paragraph Ten of this Courts

Additional Findings of Fact states that there has been no proof of subsequentviolations, at least since the hearing by Judge Maier. Whether Morgan breached

the Settlement Agreement prior to the hearing before Judge Maier does not, in any

way, affect the legal significance of this Courts injunctive Order.

June 17, 2011 Opinion for Superior Court at p. 8 (underlining added)

4. From the time of the March 16, 2011 Order (see #1 above) through April 18,

2012 there were no text or document changes or additions made to any website

owned or operated by Morgan.

5. There were no text or document changes or additions made on or about July 27,

2011 to any website owned or operated by Morgan.

6. Pa.R.A.P.1701 does not permit the trial court to change either its verdict or the

status quo while the matter is on appeal.

7. This matter, captioned above, is currently on appeal as consolidated 1573 EDA

2011,1572 EDA 2011, and 1605 EDA 2011.

8. The trial courts April 19, 2012 Order enjoins Morgan from publishing some items and

orders him to publish other items.

Case ID: 03110

Control No.: 1205


4/7

10. The trial courts April 19, 2012 Orderchanges its March 16, 2011 verdict (see #1 above).

11. The trial courts April 19, 2012 Order changes the status quo.

12. The trial courts April 19, 2012 Order violates Pa.R.A.P.1701.

WHEREFORE, the trial court should vacate its April 19, 2012 Order as per the attached Proposed

Order.

Date: May 17, 2012 __________________________

Dominic J. Morgan, pro se & in forma pauperis

Case ID: 03110

Control No.: 1205


5/7

VERIFICATION:

I, Dominic J. Morgan, defendantpro se and in forma pauperis verify these statements to

be true, and understand that these statements are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Sec.

4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

Very respectfully submitted,

Date: May 17, 2012 __________________________

Dominic J. Morgan, pro se & in forma pauperis

Case ID: 03110

Control No.: 1205


6/7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:

I certify that a true and correct copy of the attached document has been e-mailed

or mailed first class prepaid to the persons listed below on the date listed below.

Honorable Victor J. DiNubile, Jr.Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas

143 City Hall

Philadelphia, PA 19107

Trial Judge

Leon Silverman, EsquireStein & Silverman, P.C.230 South Broad Street, 18

thFloor

Philadelphia, PA. [email protected]

Maureen Fitzgerald, EsquireMarshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin620 Freedom Business Center - Suite 300King of Prussia, PA [email protected]

Meg Clark100 South Broad Street

Land Title Building, 2nd

Floor

Philadelphia, PA [email protected]

Official Court Reporter

Very respectfully submitted,

Date: May 17, 2012 __________________________Dominic J. Morgan, pro se & in forma pauperis

Case ID: 03110

Control No.: 1205
http://us.mc345.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://us.mc345.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]


7/7

Dominic J. Morgan,pro se & in forma pauperis

PO Box 1011Marlton, NJ 08053 Defendantpro se & in forma pauperis

(610) 364-3367

HERBERT J. NEVYAS, M.D., :

ANITA NEVYAS-WLLACE, M.D., : Court of Common Pleasand NEVYAS EYE ASSOCIATES, P.C. : Philadelphia County

Plaintiffs : Civil Trial Division

v. :DOMINIC MORGAN and : November Term, 2003

STEVEN FRIEDMAN : No. 00946

Defendants :

REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT

A Notice of Appeal being filed in this matter, the official Court Reporter is/are hereby

ordered to produce, certify, and file the transcript in this matter in conformity with Pa.R.A.P.

1922. This Request is made in compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1911.

Defendant Morgan, who represents himselfpro se, was granted in forma pauperis status

by Judge Manfredi on February 15, 2005, and has verified continuation of that status by filing

two (2) copies of a verification in compliance with Pa. R.A.P. 551.

Defendant Morgan is legally blind. At the 2011 trial, the Court ordered a large TV-type

monitor for his use. Defendant Morgan respectfully asks for all copies to be full-paged and also

in PDF format for reasonably easy enlargement onto a large TV-type monitor; and permission to

use copies of the trial transcript in every way he feels appropriate to effectively represent

himselfpro se, including permission to provide copies to attorneys who may be interested in

representing himpro bono and in forma pauperis.

Date: May 17, 2012 _______________________________

Case ID: 03110

Control No : 1205

Documents

Nevyas v Morgan Contempt Post Trial Motion