UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------)(
ROWE ENTERTAfNMENT, et aL
PlaintifTs,
-against-
THE WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY INC., et aL,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------)(
ROBERT P. PATTERSON, JR., U.S.D.J.
USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
'I ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#: __----r-+-,-
DATE FILED:..3 /1 I
Case No. 98-8272-RPP
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION
:FOR JOINDER AND RELIEF
On February 14,2014, Willie E. Gary ("Gary") of the law firm of Gary, Williams,
Parenti, Watson & Gary, P.L. ("Gary Williams") sent a letter to this Court. (Letter from Willie
E. Gary of Feb. 14,2014 ("Gary Letter").) Attached to that letter were copies of two UCC
Financing Statements. The first was a $500,000.000.00 commercial lien filed by Leonard Rowe
("Rowe") with the Clerk of the Superior Court in DeKalb County, Georgia on February 5, 2014
against The Gary Firm. (Id. at 3-5.) The second was a $100,000,000.00 commercial lien filed
by Rowe with the Clerk of the Superior Court in DeKalb County, Georgia on February 5, 2014
against Willie Gary. (Id. at 6-8.)
In the letter, Gary requests to "join in the applications for relief submitted by the law
firms of Dentons LLP and Loeb & Loeb LLP on behalf of their respective clients on December
6,2013," (Gary Letter at 2), and requests that the Order for a Permanent Injunction dated
December 6, 2013 (Order for a Permanent Injunction ("Injunction Order"), Dec. 6.2013. ECF
No. 883). be amended to extend to Gary personally and to the law firm of Gary Williams.
The Court's Order for a Permanent lnj unction issued on December 6, 2013 was based on
Mr. Rowe's threats to file commercial liens against William Morris Endeavor Entertainment,
LLC ("WME"), lawyers at Loeb & Loeb LLC, and current and former lawyers at Dentons LLP,
which threats undermined the finality of this Court's decision of November 8, 2012. (Injunction
Order at 2.) The November 8, 2012 Opinion of the Court denied Mr. Rowe's motion under Rule
60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in which Mr. Rowe sought relief from a February 7,
2005 judgment ofthe Court, requesting that the Court reopen the case based on his claim that his
former attorneys, certain lawyers and former lawyers at Dentons LLP, conspired with attorneys
for certain of the Defendants, including William Morris Agency, to conceal and destroy vital
evidence. (Op. & Order ("11/8112 Op.") I, Nov. 8,201 ECF No. 846.) The Court found that
Mr. Rowe did not have a sufficient basis to make claims against William Morris Agency, certain
attorneys at their law firm, Loeb & Loeb LLP, or certain lawyers and former lawyers at Dentons
LLP. at 41-42.) The Court further found that Mr. Rowe's claim that his former attorneys
and attorneys of the Defendants had conspired together in 2005 to deny him email documents
"was based on nothing more than hot air and paranoid suspicions, the truth or falsity of which he
has had the power and the opportunity to investigate for the past seven years." (Id. at 6.) In his
Rule 60 motion, Mr. Rowe made no claim against Gary personally, against Gary Williams, or
against any current or former employees of Gary Williams. Nor was he making any claims
against Gary or Gary Williams before the December 6,2013 Permanent Injunction Order as far
as this Court was aware.
Accordingly, for Gary or Gary Williams to be included in any permanent injunction order
binding on Mr. Rowe, Gary would need to show that his or his firm's inclusion in such an order
would be "necessary or appropriate to effectuate and prevent the frustration of orders [this Court]
has previously issued in its exercise of jurisdiction otherwise obtained." United States v. Int'l
Bhd. of Teamsters, 266 F.3d 45,49-50 (2d Cir. 2001)(internal citations omitted)(holding that the
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), gives federal courts authority to enjoin and bind parties
poised to  interfere with its  prior orders).  Mr.  Rowe's liens seem to  be based on alleged tortious 
conduct and not  based on  any  commercial relationship with Gary or Gary Williams, but relief on 
that basis can be  brought in another jurisdiction.  In  light of the foregoing,  this Court finds  that it 
does not have  subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction to  issue the  relief requested. 
Application DENIED. 
IT  IS  SO  ORDERED. 
Dated: New York, New York 
March/(!, 2014 
;
HON.  ROBERT P.   
UNITED  STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful