Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Rowe Entertainment v. William Morris Agency Et Al. (98-8272) - Order From Judge Patterson Reprimanding Leonard Rowe (June 12, 2012)

    Uploaded by

    Mr Alkebu-lan
    302 views2 pages
    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?

    Original Title

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

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    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?

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    302 views2 pages

    Rowe Entertainment v. William Morris Agency Et Al. (98-8272) - Order From Judge Patterson Reprimanding Leonard Rowe (June 12, 2012)

    Uploaded by

    Mr Alkebu-lan
    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?

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

    -----------------------------------------------------------)(
    ROWE ENTERTAINMENT, et al. Plaintiffs,
    - against ORDER THE WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY INC., et al. Defendants. 98 CV 8272 (RPP)

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

    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

    You might also like