Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Appellant,
v. 5 ,.
'c !.
:c
t.:~
.7i
"
..--
,,. i
I.'i i.
Appellees. 1 T:?:
r.
ij
. l
i -...
21:- >- ... .
,.
"7
V
COMES NOW, the Appellant, Mark A. Adams, and files this Verified Motion to Vacate
Order of November 14,2008 Granting Appellee's Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal
showing:
1. On November 14,2008, the Appellee, Timothy W. Weber, appearing pro se, filed the
Appellees' Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal and Extend the Time Period for
Filing an Answer Brief to One Week Following the Transmittal of the Complete Record
(Docket # 19) (hereinafter referred to as "Weber's Motion to Supplement the Record") with a
certificate of service falsely claiming to have served a copy to the undersigned via U.S. Mail.
However, the undersigned did not receive a copy of Weber's Motion to Supplement the
Record, and instead, had to incur charges to obtain a copy through PACER.
2. The record shows that no hearing was held on Weber's Motion to Supplement the Record
before it was purportedly granted by entry of an order by the Honorable &chard A. Lazzara
on November 14,2008 (Docket # 20). Although this Court's online docket indicates that the
foregoing order was signed by the Honorable Richard A. Lazzara, the signature is type
written, and the order was not mailed to the undersigned until November 17,2008 or later.
See a copy of the order of November 14,2008 with a copy of the clerk's envelope
transmitting the same with a postal meter stamp dated November 17,2008 attached as
Exhibit A.
3. IJndoubtedly, as attorneys are required to be familiar with and comply with the rules of
procedure and are prohibited from filing baseless or misleadiig documents with the court,
most motions to enlarge time which this Court reviews are likely timely and show good
cause why an enlargement of time should be granted and in instances when the motion is
untimely, also show that the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.
4. However, the record shows that as usual, Weber filed a baseless and misleading motion
which failed to meet the basic requirements for a motion to enlarge time, perhaps that is why
he failed to serve a copy to me. Specifically, Weber's Motion to Supplement the Record was
untimely, failed to show good cause why an extension of time should be granted, failed to
show that his failure to act in a timely manner was the result of excusable neglect, and was
filed on the Friday just before his answer brief was due.
5. Furthermore, in an obvious effort to mislead this Court, Weber falsely claimed that no party
Weber's false claim is absurd as the undersigned filed and served the Appellant's Initial Brief
(Docket # 18) on October 3 1,2008, a fact which Weber failed to mention, and Weber sought
to introduce documents not addressed in the Initial Brief, an action which would obviously
6. In addition, rather than explaining to this Court why his motion was untimely, why his failure
to act timely should be excused, and showing why his motion should be granted, Weber
falsely and misleadingly claimed that Weber's Motion to Supplement the Record should be
granted because the undersigned did not file the "entire record on appeal" claiming that the
record which was filed with this Court violates this Court's order entered on September 9,
2008 (Docket # 8). Once again, Weber either failed to read the governing rule of procedure
in violation of his duty to this Court or he has intentionally misled this Court. The record on
appeal is defined and explained by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8006 which states
in pertinent part, "The record on appeal shall include the items so designated by the
parties, the notice of appeal, the judgment, order, or dccrec appcalcd fiom, and any opinion,
7. In Weber's Motion to Supplement the Record, Weber admitted that he was aware that on
September 22,2008, the undersigned filed a designation of items to be included in the record
and a statement of issues to be presented which were served to Weber via U.S. Mail on
September 20,2008, and that the items designated as the record on appeal were filed with
8. Apparently, Weber failed to notice or chose to ignore the pertinent part of Rule 8006 which
states, "Within 10 days after service of the appellant's statement the appellee may file and
appeal.. .." Instead, in paragraph 9 of Weber's Motion to Supplement the Record, Weber
falsely stated, "As a result of the confusion and procedural irregularity caused by the pro se
Appellant's actions, Appellees have never becn afforded an opportunity to file a dcsignation
9. Pursuant to Rule 8006 and Rule 9006 governing time, if Weber had wanted to file a timely
and two weeks after the Appellant's Initial Briefhad been filed, to seek to tnclude add~ttonal
items in the record by filmy a baseless and misleading motion with thls Court
10. As Wekr's Motion to Supplement the Record was untimely, failed to show good cause why
an extension of time should be granted, filed to show that his failure to act in a timely
manner was the resdt of excusable neglect, was filed an the Friday just before hrs answer
br~efwas due, was also false and misleading, and was not served to the undersigned and as
Weber~sMotion to Supplement the Record was granted without notice and an opportunlty to
be heard being afforded to the undersigned, the order grantlng Weher's Motion to
1I. 'Curthermore, as Weber has engaged in bad faith conduct and as the undersigned has suffered
prejudice as a direct result of such egregious unethical conduct, this Court r;houid strnkc the
supplemental items and Weber's Answer nnef fmm the record and proceed with the
WHEREFORE, d ~ Appellant
e respectfully requests that this Court enter an order
vacating the order entered on November 14,2008 whch granted Weber's Motion to Suppiement
the Record, striking the supplementat items and Webr's Answer Brief from the record, and
proceeding wlth the determination of this appeal based on the Appellant's lnltial Rnef
VERIFICATION
I !rider penalties of perjury, I declare that I have mad the foregoing and the facts stated in
it are true.
I hereby certify that 1 have served a true and correct copy of this document via U.S. Mail
to Donald R. Kirk, Esquire, of Fowler White B o g g Banker, P.A., counsel for Timothy W
Weber, at P.O. Box 1438; Tampa, FL 33601; and to Timothy W. Weber, Esyuirc, pro se of
Ratkglia, Ross, Dicw & Wein, P.A., at P. 0.Box 41 100; St Petersburg, FL 33743 on rhix
., , . .
. ,,',
--- day of December, 2008.
-- ---
Mark A. Adams JIIIMBA
4129 Balington Dr.
Valrico, FL. 33596
Telephone: 81 3-643-4412
Exhibit A
Case 8:08-cv-01570-RAL Document 20 Filed 1111412008 Page 1 of 2
MARK A. ADAMS.
Appellant,
CORPOIU7'1<SPORTS MARKI:,'I'ING
GROIJP, INC., el al.,
ORDER
follows:
appeal in this casc wilh the docuinents specified on pages 5 and 6 of the motion.
3) Appellees shall tile their answer brief within one week of the
siRichard A. Lazzu~.a
RICHARD A. LAZZARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE