The United States of America v. Mednansky et al
Filing
51
ORDER Denying 50 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 4/19/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)(jrd)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
12
CASE NO. 10cv1307-LAB (BGS)
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
vs.
13
14
15
DAVID MEDNANSKY, MARTINE
MEDNANSKY, individually,
Defendant.
16
17
18
On April 10, Plaintiffs submitted a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
19
12(b)(4) and (5). By discrepancy order issued April 16, the Court accepted this motion for
20
filing nunc pro tunc as an ex parte motion for reconsideration of the Court’s earlier orders.
21
The motion claims that Jennifer Hegemier, Esq., the Mednanskys’ attorney who also
22
represented them in the related case 09cv1478-LAB (BGS), Mednansky v. Metz, was not
23
authorized to accept service of process, that the Mednanskys were not served in some other
24
way, and therefore the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them.
25
On April 22, 2010, Ms. Hegemier was duly substituted in place of the Mednanskys
26
(who had been proceeding pro se) in case 09cv1478, and the Mednanskys’ signatures
27
appear on the substitution form. Two months later, she accepted service on their behalf in
28
this case, which was related to the earlier action. Her declaration in support of the
-1-
10cv1307
1
acknowledgement of service in this case is filed in the docket in support of the return of
2
service in this case. (See Docket no. 4 at 1.)
3
The current motion concedes that Ms. Hegemier was representing the Mednanskys
4
in the related matter but claims she was not authorized to represent them in this matter or
5
accept service for them. Specifically, they allege:
6
Hegemier had no legal authority to accept process on defendants[‘] behalf,
the defendants had never given Hegemier authority to accept summons and
complaint, Hegemier never asked permission to accept this service, Hegemier
was not defendants’ attorney in this action or proceeding or when she
accepted service, [and] defendants have no contract with Hegemier for
representation in this case . . . .
7
8
9
10
Motion at 3:2–9.
11
The record shows, however, that both Defendants were well aware that this action
12
was pending and that Ms. Hegemier was representing them in it, and that they consented
13
to this representation. For example, each of the Mednanskys signed a declaration under
14
penalty of perjury in support of their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary
15
judgment. (Docket nos. 35-2 at 1–4 (Declaration of David Mednansky, dated November 12,
16
2010), 35-3, 1–6 (Declaration of Martine Mednansky, dated November 12, 2010).) The
17
declarations are both headed by this case’s caption, giving the parties and case number, and
18
both declarations list Ms. Hegemier as their counsel of record. The Mednanskys gave the
19
declarations to Ms. Hegemier, who filed them on their behalf.
20
The Mednanskys’ complaints about Ms. Hegemier’s representation of them do not
21
warrant reversing any rulings. Even if an attorney fails to act competently or in her clients’
22
interest, they are still bound by her acts. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633–34
23
(1962).
24
That said, there is no evidence Ms. Hegemier incompetently represented the
25
Mednanskys, or that she was responsible for the adverse rulings against them. She raised
26
the arguments they had already raised in two previous cases, but did so in better form,
27
adding supporting authority and other, better arguments. When she substituted in, in the
28
second of three related actions, a number of rulings adverse to the Mednanskys had already
-2-
10cv1307
1
been made.(See Docket no. 30 at 12:25–13:5 (pointing out that most issues had already
2
been litigated), 12:16–17 (adopting reasoning of earlier rulings); 18:9 (noting earlier ruling),
3
20:6–9 (noting the Mednanskys’ position in earlier litigation).) Ms. Hegemier was not
4
responsible for the law of the case when she substituted in and began trying to assist them.
5
And although they now claim she lost their appeal, there is no indication any appeal would
6
have succeeded. For example, the Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed this Court’s dismissal
7
of the complaint in Mednansky v. Gillett, 07cv1425, finding it to be frivolous. Later, on August
8
9, 2011, the Ninth Circuit, citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987), denied the
9
Mednanskys’ motion for a stay pending appeal of this Court’s order evicting them and
10
authorizing the demolition of their cabin.
11
In short, the Mednanskys’ motion is baseless. In three lawsuits they have defended
12
on the merits. There is no basis for reconsidering or revisiting earlier decisions. The motion
13
is DENIED.
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 19, 2012
17
18
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
10cv1307
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?