Archdiocese Income. Archdiocese Expenses Back to the Metropolises.
Warning letters from Stan Chesley's attorney to plaintiffs in Covington Archdiocese sex abuse case,...
14
WEBER jCU O JLJ A Professional Service Corporation James M. Gary [email protected] March 23, 2011 Tom Cardosi c/o Thomas E. Clay, Esq. Thomas E. Clay, P.S.C. Clay Frederick Adams, PLC 462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 RE: Barbara Hellman etal. v. Stanley M. Chesley, etal. Kenton County Circuit Court, Div. 3, Case No. 11-CI-00809 NOTICE PURSUANT TO RULE 11. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Dear Mr. Cardosi: We are serving you with this letter through your counsel's office. We have asked your counsel to deliver it to you immediately. On behalf of Defendants, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., LPA and attorneys Stanley M. Chesley, Esq. and Robert A. Steinberg, Esq., we hereby put you on notice that, by presenting to the Court a Complaint against these Defendants, you have certified that you have made a reasonable inquiry into the facts supporting your claims, and that by filing the Complaint in this matter, you have certified that you have made a reasonable inquiry into the facts supporting your claims, and that the factual allegations are truthful; therefore, you are subject to sanctions for violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You have signed a verification, attached to your Complaint, stating that the statements made in it are true. As a substantive matter, these claims have no merit, and you cannot raise an issue of material fact as to any of the claims in the Complaint, as even a cursory examination of the documents you filed in the Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese litigation establish. Before verifying the filing of this complaint, you did not exercise the appropriate diligence in either reviewing the materials supplied to you by the Defendants during the course of proceedings in the Doe case, or by requesting any information from the Defendants or their counsel. The documents provided to you during the course of the Doe litigation establish that there is absolutely no basis in law or in fact to these claims. The statements and claims made in your Complaint are fanciful and without any merit. You undeniably knew and understood the Claims Administrative Procedures in the Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington class action. You also knowingly signed a release stating under 471 West Main Street Suite 400 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Tel 502.589.2200 Fax 502.589.3400 www.weberandrose.com LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA
Transcript of Warning letters from Stan Chesley's attorney to plaintiffs in Covington Archdiocese sex abuse case,...
WEBER j C U O JLJ A Professional Service Corporation
James M. Gary
[email protected] March 23, 2011
Tom Cardosi c/o Thomas E. Clay, Esq. Thomas E. Clay, P.S.C. Clay Frederick Adams, PLC 462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101 Louisville, Kentucky 40202
RE: Barbara Hellman etal. v. Stanley M. Chesley, etal.
Kenton County Circuit Court, Div. 3, Case No. 11-CI-00809
NOTICE PURSUANT TO RULE 11. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Dear Mr. Cardosi: We are serving you with this letter through your counsel's office. We have asked
your counsel to deliver it to you immediately.
On behalf of Defendants, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., LPA and attorneys Stanley M. Chesley, Esq. and Robert A. Steinberg, Esq., we hereby put you on notice that, by presenting to the Court a Complaint against these Defendants, you have certified that you have made a reasonable inquiry into the facts supporting your claims, and that by filing the Complaint in this matter, you have certified that you have made a reasonable inquiry into the facts supporting your claims, and that the factual allegations are truthful; therefore, you are subject to sanctions for violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You have signed a verification, attached to your Complaint, stating that the statements made in it are true.
As a substantive matter, these claims have no merit, and you cannot raise an issue of material fact as to any of the claims in the Complaint, as even a cursory examination of the documents you filed in the Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese litigation establish. Before verifying the filing of this complaint, you did not exercise the appropriate diligence in either reviewing the materials supplied to you by the Defendants during the course of proceedings in the Doe case, or by requesting any information from the Defendants or their counsel.
The documents provided to you during the course of the Doe litigation establish that there is absolutely no basis in law or in fact to these claims. The statements and claims made in your Complaint are fanciful and without any merit. You undeniably knew and understood the Claims Administrative Procedures in the Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington class action. You also knowingly signed a release stating under
471 West Main Street Suite 400 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Tel 502.589.2200 Fax 502.589.3400 www.weberandrose.com
LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA
Tom Cardosi March 23, 2011 Page 2
oath that you were not coerced or induced to sign the release by any promise, representation or threat made by any person.
Under Rule 11, a Plaintiff and his/her attorney have a duty to perform an adequate investigation before asserting claims against any Defendant.
The defense of this action will involve significant time and costs. In addition, the substantial time taken to work on this lawsuit will be time the Defendants will be unable to devote to their legal practice, causing them to forgo other cases and substantial income. As time passes, these losses will multiply. If a Rule 11 sanctions motion is filed, it will seek to recover these costs.
The Defendants will seek to remove this case to federal court. On behalf of the Defendants, I will seek to have this case consolidated with the pending federal court actions filed by Christine Anderson (2:10-116-DCR) and Candace Wenger (2:10-117-DCR), which involve virtually identical allegations. The discovery taken in the Anderson and Wenger cases shows that those cases are totally unfounded in law or in fact.
We believe it is incumbent upon you and your attorney to promptly review the nature of your claims, conduct legal research on the baseless nature of these claims, and dismiss this case with prejudice.
Yours sincerely,
James M. Gary Counsel for Defendants
WEBER vJ' ^ EJ A Professional Service Corporation
James M. Gary [email protected] March 23, 2011
Guy Barnes (by and through his guardian) c/o Thomas E. Clay, Esq. Thomas E. Clay, P.S.C. Clay Frederick Adams, PLC 462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101 Louisville, Kentucky 40202
RE: Barbara Hellman etal. v. Stanley M. Chesley, etal.
Kenton County Circuit Court, Div. 3, Case No. 11-CI-00809
NOTICE PURSUANT TO RULE 11, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Dear Mr. Barnes: We are serving your guardian with this letter through your counsel's office. We
have asked your counsel to deliver it to you and your guardian immediately.
On behalf of Defendants, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., LPA and attorneys Stanley M. Chesley, Esq. and Robert A. Steinberg, Esq., we hereby put you on notice that, by presenting to the Court a Complaint against these Defendants, you have certified that you and/or your guardian have made a reasonable inquiry into the facts supporting your claims, and that by filing the Complaint in this matter, you and/or your guardian have certified that you have made a reasonable inquiry into the facts supporting your claims, and that the factual allegations are truthful; therefore, you and/or your authorized representative and/or guardian are subject to sanctions for violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Your guardian has signed a verification, on your behalf, attached to your Complaint, stating that the statements made in it are true.
As a substantive matter, these claims have no merit, and you and/or your guardian cannot raise an issue of material fact as to any of the claims in the Complaint, as even a cursory examination of the documents you filed in the Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese litigation establish. Before verifying the filing of this complaint, you and/or your guardian did not exercise the appropriate diligence in either reviewing the materials supplied to you by the Defendants during the course of proceedings in the Doe case, or requesting any information from the Defendants or their counsel.
The documents provided to you during the course of the Doe litigation establish that there is absolutely no basis in law or in fact to these claims. The statements and claims made in your Complaint are fanciful and without any merit. You were provided
471 West Main Street Suite 400 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Tel 502.589.2200 Fax 502.589.3400 www.weberandrose.com
LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA
Guy Barnes (by and through his guardian) March 23, 2011 Page 2
with the Claims Administrative Procedures in the Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington class action. A release was signed stating under oath that you were not coerced or induced to sign the release by any promise, representation or threat made by any person.
Under Rule 11, a Plaintiff and his/her attorney have a duty to perform an adequate investigation before asserting claims against any Defendant.
The defense of this action will involve significant time and costs. In addition, the substantial time taken to work on this lawsuit will be time the Defendants will be unable to devote to their legal practice, causing them to forgo other cases and substantial income. As time passes, these losses will multiply. If a Rule 11 sanctions motion is filed, it will seek to recover these costs.
The Defendants will seek to remove this case to federal court. On behalf of the Defendants, I will seek to have this case consolidated with the pending federal court actions filed by Christine Anderson (2:10-116-DCR) and Candace Wenger (2:10-117-DCR), which involve virtually identical allegations. The discovery taken in the Anderson and Wenger cases shows that those cases are totally unfounded in law or in fact.
We believe it is incumbent upon you and/or your guardian and your attorney to promptly review the nature of your claims, conduct legal research on the baseless nature of these claims, and dismiss this case with prejudice.
Yours sincerely,
James M. Gary Counsel for Defendants
WEBER 1 ROSE
A Professional Service Corporation
James M. Gary
[email protected] March 23, 2011
Julane Simpson c/o Thomas E. Clay, Esq. Thomas E. Clay, P.S.C. Clay Frederick Adams, PLC 462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101 Louisville, Kentucky 40202
RE: Barbara Hellman et a/, v. Stanley M. Chesley, et al.
Kenton County Circuit Court, Div. 3, Case No. 11-CI-00809
NOTICE PURSUANT TO RULE 11. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Dear Ms. Simpson: We are serving you with this letter through your counsel's office. We have asked
your counsel to deliver it to you immediately.
On behalf of Defendants, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., LPA and attorneys Stanley M. Chesley, Esq. and Robert A. Steinberg, Esq., we hereby put you on notice that, by presenting to the Court a Complaint against these Defendants, you have certified that you have made a reasonable inquiry into the facts supporting your claims, and that by filing the Complaint in this matter, you have certified that you have made a reasonable inquiry into the facts supporting your claims, and that the factual allegations are truthful; therefore, you are subject to sanctions for violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You have signed a verification, attached to your Complaint, stating that the statements made in it are true.
As a substantive matter, these claims have no merit, and you cannot raise an issue of material fact as to any of the claims in the Complaint, as even a cursory examination of the documents you filed in the Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese litigation establish. Before verifying the filing of this complaint, you did not exercise the appropriate diligence in either reviewing the materials supplied to you by the Defendants during the course of proceedings in the Doe case, or by requesting any information from the Defendants or their counsel.
The documents provided to you during the course of the Doe litigation establish that there is absolutely no basis in law or in fact to these claims. The statements and claims made in your Complaint are fanciful and without any merit. You undeniably knew and understood the Claims Administrative Procedures in the Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington class action. You also knowingly signed a release stating under
471 West Main Street Suite 400 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Tel 502.589.2200 Fax 502.589.3400 www.weberandrose.com
LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA
Julane Simpson March 23, 2011 Page 2
oath that you were not coerced or induced to sign the release by any promise, representation or threat made by any person.
Under Rule 11, a Plaintiff and his/her attorney have a duty to perform an adequate investigation before asserting claims against any Defendant.
The defense of this action will involve significant time and costs. In addition, the substantial time taken to work on this lawsuit will be time the Defendants will be unable to devote to their legal practice, causing them to forgo other cases and substantial income. As time passes, these losses will multiply. If a Rule 11 sanctions motion is filed, it will seek to recover these costs.
The Defendants will seek to remove this case to federal court. On behalf of the Defendants, I will seek to have this case consolidated with the pending federal court actions filed by Christine Anderson (2:10-116-DCR) and Candace Wenger (2:10-117-DCR), which involve virtually identical allegations. The discovery taken in the Anderson and Wenger cases shows that those cases are totally unfounded in law or in fact.
We believe it is incumbent upon you and your attorney to promptly review the nature of your claims, conduct legal research on the baseless nature of these claims, and dismiss this case with prejudice.
Yours sincerely,
James M. Gary Counsel for Defendants
,^EBER «3?. ROSE
A Professional Service Corporation
James M. Gary
[email protected] March 23, 2011
Barbara Hellman c/o Thomas E. Clay, Esq. Thomas E. Clay, P.S.C. Clay Frederick Adams, PLC 462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101 Louisville, Kentucky 40202
RE: Barbara Hellman et al. v. Stanley M. Chesley, etal.
Kenton County Circuit Court, Div. 3, Case No. 11-CI-00809
NOTICE PURSUANT TO RULE 11. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Dear Ms. Hellman: We are serving you with this letter through your counsel's office. We have asked
your counsel to deliver it to you immediately.
On behalf of Defendants, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., LPA and attorneys Stanley M. Chesley, Esq. and Robert A. Steinberg, Esq., we hereby put you on notice that, by presenting to the Court a Complaint against these Defendants, you have certified that you have made a reasonable inquiry into the facts supporting your claims, and that by filing the Complaint in this matter, you have certified that you have made a reasonable inquiry into the facts supporting your claims, and that the factual allegations are truthful; therefore, you are subject to sanctions for violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You have signed a verification, attached to your Complaint, stating that the statements made in it are true.
As a substantive matter, these claims have no merit, and you cannot raise an issue of material fact as to any of the claims in the Complaint, as even a cursory examination of the documents you filed in the Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese litigation establish. Before verifying the filing of this complaint, you did not exercise the appropriate diligence in either reviewing the materials supplied to you by the Defendants during the course of proceedings in the Doe case, or requesting any information from the Defendants or their counsel.
The documents provided to you during the course of the Doe litigation establish that there is absolutely no basis in law or in fact to these claims. The statements and claims made in your Complaint are fanciful and without any merit. You undeniably knew and understood the Claims Administrative Procedures in the Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington class action. You also knowingly signed a release stating under
471 West Main Street Suite 400 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Tel 502.589.2200 Fax 502.589.3400 www.weberandrose.com
LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA
Barbara Hellmann March 23, 2011 Page 2
oath that you were not coerced or induced to sign the release by any promise, representation or threat made by any person.
Under Rule 11, a Plaintiff and his/her attorney have a duty to perform an adequate investigation before asserting claims against any Defendant.
The defense of this action will involve significant time and costs. In addition, the substantial time taken to work on this lawsuit will be time the Defendants will be unable to devote to their legal practice, causing them to forgo other cases and substantial income. As time passes, these losses will multiply. If a Rule 11 sanctions motion is filed, it will seek to recover these costs.
The Defendants will seek to remove this case to federal court. On behalf of the Defendants, I will seek to have this case consolidated with the pending federal court actions filed by Christine Anderson (2:10-116-DCR) and Candace Wenger (2:10-117-DCR), which involve virtually identical allegations. The discovery taken in the Anderson and Wenger cases shows that those cases are totally unfounded in law or in fact.
We believe it is incumbent upon you and your attorney to promptly review the nature of your claims, conduct legal research on the baseless nature of these claims, and dismiss this case with prejudice.
Yours sincerely,
James M. Gary Counsel for Defendants
KENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DIVISION THREE (3)
Case No. 11-CI-00809
BARBARA HELLMAN, Plaintiffs and JULANE SIMPSON, and GUY BARNES, By and through his guardian, Heather Moser, and TOM CARDOSI
NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL
v.
STANLEY M. CHESLEY, ef al. Defendants
TO: THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE COURT
Defendants, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co.,LPA, Stanley M. Chesley and
Robert A. Steinberg, by counsel, hereby give notice that they have on this 23rd day of March,
2011, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern
Division (at Covington) a Notice of Removal.
Pursuant to Paragraph 28 U.S. C. §1446(d), Defendants, Waite, Schneider, Bayless &
Chesley Co.,LPA, Stanley M. Chesley and Robert A. Steinberg file with you a copy of their
Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,
attached hereto.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(d), filing this Notice with the Clerk of the State Court
removes this action from the State Court to the United States District Court, "and the State
Court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded." See 28 U.S.C. §1446(d).
Compliance with form and procedure for removal automatically removes the case from the State
Court to Federal District Court, and such removal stays any further action in the State court until
further order from the Federal District Court.
Respectfully Submitted,
^ James M. Gary WEBER & ROSE, PSC 471 West Main Street Suite 400 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 (502) 589-2200 Phone (502) 589-3400 Fax Counsel for Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This will certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the 23rd day of March, 2011, to the following:
Thomas E. Clay Thomas E. Clay, P.S.C. Clay Frederick Adams, PLC 462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Counsel for Plaintiffs
James M. Gary
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION (at Covington)
Electronically Filed
BARBARA HELLMAN, and JULANE SIMPSON, and GUY BARNES, By and through his guardian, Heather Moser, and TOM CARDOSI
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION NO.: Removed from Kenton Circuit Court Case No. 11-CI-00809
STANLEY M. CHESLEY, ROBERT STEINBERG, and WAITE, SCHNEIDER, BAYLESS and CHESLEY CO., LPA
Defendants
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY, NORTHERN DIVISON (at Covington):
For its Notice of Removal of this action from the Kenton Circuit Court in Kenton
County, Kentucky to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,
Northern Division, Defendants, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co.,LPA, Stanley
M. Chesley and Robert A. Steinberg, state as follows:
1. On or about March 18, 2011, Plaintiffs, Barbara Hellmann, Julane
Simpson, Guy Barnes (by and through his Guardian, Heather Moser) and Tom Cardosi,
filed a Complaint against Defendants, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co.,LPA,
Stanley M. Chesley and Robert A. Steinberg in Kenton Circuit Court. The Complaint
was assigned case No. 11-CI-00809. (See attached Exhibit "A").
2. Based on a fair reading of the Complaint and the Plaintiffs' allegations, the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.
3. Plaintiffs, Barbara Hellmann, Julane Simpson, Guy Barnes (by and
through his Guardian, Heather Moser) and Tom Cardosi, are now and were at the
commencement of this action residents of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
4. Defendants, Stanley M. Chesley and Robert A. Steinberg, are at the time
of the filing of this Notice of Removal and were at the time of the commencement of this
action, residents of the State of Ohio, a state other than Kentucky, and the Defendant,
Waite, Schneider, Bayless and Chesley Co., LPA, was and is organized under the laws
of the State of Ohio, and had and has its principal place of business in Ohio, a state
other than Kentucky.
5. Plaintiffs' action against Defendants is one over which this Court has
original jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1), and is one that may
be removed to this Court by Defendants pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1441,
in that it is an action between citizens of different states.
6. Plaintiffs' claim an amount of damages that exceeds $75,000.00,
exclusive of interest and cost. See Plaintiffs' Complaint (Exhibit A) and paragraph 2,
above.
7. This Notice of Removal was filed in this Court within 30 days after receipt
of notice of Plaintiffs' Complaint.
2
8. The claims in this lawsuit are virtually identical to those in pending Civil
Actions number 2:10-116-DCR and 2:10-117-DCR and thus is a related case.
WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., LPA,
Stanley M. Chesley and Robert A. Steinberg provide notice that the cause of action
pending in Kenton Circuit Court, Kenton County, Kentucky is hereby removed to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division, at
Covington.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ James M. Gary James M. Gary WEBER & ROSE, PSC 471 West Main Street Suite 400 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 (502) 589-2200 Phone (502) 589-3400 Fax Counsel for Defendant
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that on this the 23rd day of March, 2011, notice of this filing was sent to the Kenton Circuit Court, by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, and this document was electronically filed through the ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to:
Thomas E. Clay, P.S.C. Clay Frederick Adams, PLC 462 S. Fourth Street, Suite 101 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Counsel for Plaintiffs
/s/ James M. Gary James M. Gary
4
