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
7/30/2019 Nevyas v Morgan Contempt Post Trial Motion
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defamatory material not withdrawn years earlier.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
7/30/2019 Nevyas v Morgan Contempt Post Trial Motion
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
7/30/2019 Nevyas v Morgan Contempt Post Trial Motion
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
7/30/2019 Nevyas v Morgan Contempt Post Trial Motion
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
7/30/2019 Nevyas v Morgan Contempt Post Trial Motion
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]7/30/2019 Nevyas v Morgan Contempt Post Trial Motion
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