Their Version of Third-Party Practice
Although I set forth FRCVP 14 in my last posting, it is worth repeating here because we will need a clear understanding of this rule if we are to understand the hanky-panky that’s going on. I use hanky-panky to show that at times I can demonstrate tendencies to have candor towards the tribunal, in conformity with the Rules of Professional Conduct. By the way when you are appearing in a pro se capacity the rules apply to you as well. I met a prominent lawyer in the law library that I frequent and he told me that most attorney's hate going against a pro se litigant because the court allows us to break the rules. I laughed and you're starting to know why, right?
FRCVP 14 Third-Party Practice, (a) When a Defending Party May Bring in a Third Party, (1) Timing of the Summons and Complaint, holds: "A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a non-party who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it. But the third-party plaintiff must, by motion, obtain the court's leave if it files the third-party complaint more than 10 days after serving its original answers."
I'm going some where with this so please, stay with me. On Oct. 14, 2008 docket item #7, ANSWER to Complaint, was filed by attorney Christopher Mauro, on behalf of Harrah's Hotel and Casino. (See page 9 @ Dkt_Sheet_as of_8_31_2011 in the "Source Links" to the right)
On the same page of the Docket Sheet above you will note that 10 days after filing the original answers for his client Harrah's Hotel and Casino, Mr. Mauro has not effected service of a Third-Party summons and complaint on anyone. The courts docket clearly shows: 10/14/2008 Answer filed by Harrah's, 10/17/2008 Order filed by Magistrate Judge Schneider setting the "Initial Conference" for 12/17/2008, and the next entry to be made on the courts docket was docket item #19, Reply and Objection to the Sufficiency of Defendants Answers, filed by me Earl Hickson.
Christopher Mauro, knew or should have known that his purported "cross-claim" against State of New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) was contrary to FRCVP 13 Counterclaim and Cross-claim. Mauro further knew, should have known, or should not have relied upon the judges allowing him to proceed on a cross-claim against a person or agency that was not a co-party to civil action 08cv02407 (NLH).
The caption page of the complaint clearly sets forth the parties to the action. There is further evidence as to the parties by my plain statement found at the bottom of the caption page of the complaint. (See "Source Links" to the right "3rd Amended Complaint") I have shown you that it is a fact that Harrah's Hotel and Casino's original answers were filed on Oct. 14, 2008. The facts further substantiate that on Oct. 24, 2008 Harrah's, by way of Christopher Mauro, did not file a summons and complaint to make the Division of Gaming Enforcement a party to civil action 08cv02407(NLH)
We have discussed FRCVP 14, which tells us when a defending party may bring in a third-party. In previous paragraphs we've seen that Rule 14 was not followed to the letter. I have made the averment that Christopher Mauro knew, should have known or depended upon the judges allowing his so-called cross-claim to proceed contrary to the rule that plainly states that a pleading may state as a cross-claim any claim by one party against a co-party.
Christopher Mauro's cross-claim against the N.J. DGE is not valid because that entity is not a co-party to the complaint. My basis in law for this position is FRCVP 13 (g) Counterclaim Against a Co-party, holding: "A pleading may state as a cross-claim any claim by one party against a co-party if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim or if the claim relates to any property that is the subject matter of the original action. The counter-claim may include a claim that the co-party is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant."
FRCVP 13 (h) Joining Additional Parties, clearly states that: "Rules 19 and 20 govern the addition of a person as a party to a counter-claim or crass-claim." I posit that Judge Hillman's Opinion of Sept. 27, 2010 is devoid of reference to FRCVP 13, 14, 19, or 20. Go ahead search it and see for yourself, its in the link list as "Earl Hickson v Marina Associates. (Tick-tock-tick-tock)
Not! In my opinion here's why. The cohorts wanted to and needed to refer to defendant Letchblau, Kosko and Morton as the "State" defendants as to allow the judge to bring in the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (To be Continued)
Till then, I thank you for stopping by, I hope that you will subscribe to this blog, tell your friends and continue to experience Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming. TheCasinoGamingOracle