judyrecords
search tips
740 million+
United States Court Cases

District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals Record

AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION V. CONGOLEUM CORPORATION

Case Information: 05-CV-0174
Short Caption:AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION V. CONGOLEUM CORPORATIONClassification:Appeals - Civil - Other Civil
Superior Court or Agency Case Number:MISC249-04Filed Date:03/10/2005

Opening Event Date:03/10/2005Case Status:Closed
Record Completed:05/20/2005Post-Decision Matter Pending:
Briefs Completed:
Argued/Submitted:
Disposition:Next Scheduled Action:
Mandate Issued:10/12/2005

Party Information
Appellate RoleParty NameIFPAttorney(s)Arguing AttorneyE-Filer
AppellantAmerican Insurance AssociationN
Roy T. Englert NN
Kathryn S. ZeccaNN
Noah A. Messing NN
AppelleeCongoleum CorporationN
Stephen A. WeisbrodNN

Events
Event DateStatusDescriptionResult
03/10/2005NOTICE OF APPEAL
03/10/2005APPELLANT'S MOTION TO EXPEDITE APPEAL
03/11/2005TMC - Aplt's motion to expedite appeal - Aple's opposition - Aplt's (AIA) motion for stay - Aple's response to motion for stay - Aplt's reply to motion for stay
03/17/2005APPELLEE'S OPPOSITION - to aplt's motion to expedite appeal
03/18/2005APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR STAY-of the order of the superior court pending appeal action requested by 3/30/05
03/28/2005NOTICE RECEIVED - from aple to superior court order denying aple's motion for a stay pending appeal of order denying moiton to quash subpoena
03/28/2005APPELLEE'S ANSWER/RESPONSE to appellant's motion for stay.
03/29/2005APPELLANT'S REPLY - in support of its motion for a stay pending appeal action requested by 3/30/05
03/30/2005ORDERED, sua sponte, the the Clerk shall file appellee's untimely lodged opposition to the motion for stay *** MORE ***
03/30/2005ORDER DENY APLT'S MOTIONS TO EXPEDITE & FOR STAY Appellant requests a stay of an order of the Superior Court (fisher.J.) denying its motion to quash a subpoena directing appellant to make one or more of its officers available to testify and to produce documents related to its pursuit of asbestos reform legislation. The subpoena was issued pursuant to a commission issued by the presiding judge in insurance coverage litigation pending in the New Jersey state court. However, appellant has not met the standard necessary to permit this court to order a stay of the Superior Court's order. Barry v. Washington Post Co., 529 A.2d 319, 321 (D.C. 1987). In particular, appellant has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success in its claim that Judge Fisher abused his discretion in denying the motion to quash. In general, principles of comity require deference by the courts of this jurisdiction to decisions regarding discovery made by the courts of other jurisdictions. See, e.g., American Online, Inc. v. Nam Tai Elec., Inc., 571 S.E.2d 128, 134 (Va. 2002); Barnes v. A Confidential Party, 628 So.2d 283, 288 (Miss. 1993)(citing Jarvis v. Jarvis, 533 N.Y.S.2d 207 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1988)); Fischer Brewing co. v. Flax, 740 N.E.2d 351 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000); Shea, Gould, Climenko & Casey v. Simpson, Thatcher & Barlett, 414 N.Y.S.2d 80 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979). Moreover, although the merits of Jude Fisher's decision are not before us (and we do not prejudice them), the reasons stated in his written Memorandum persuade us that appellant has not made the requisite showing of likelihood that is will suceed in demonstrating error in the decision. For similar reasons, and for the reasons stated by appellee in its opposition, appellant has not demonstrated that it would suffer irreparable harm from implementation of the discovery order. See Barry, 529 A.2d at 322. (by: TESCFA)
04/05/2005 On consideration of the notice of appeal filed in this case on March 10, 2005, it is ORDERED that appellant shall, within 20 days from the date of this order, complete and file with this court a single copy of the attached statement regarding transcript. Where transcript(s) necessary for this appeal have been ordered and completed for non-appeal purposes, appellant must advise the Court Reporting Division to forward said transcript(s) for inclusion in the record on appeal. If partial transcripts are being ordered, appellant must file a statement of issues to be raised on appeal with this court within 10 days from the date of this order. See D.C. App. R. 10 (b)(3)(A). It is FURTHER ORDERED appellant's failure to respond to any order of this court, including this order, shall subject this appeal to dismissal without further notice for lack of prosecution. See D.C. App. R. 13(a). (BY: GP)
04/25/2005STATEMENT REGARDING TRANSCRIPT(S) (NO RT) lw
05/20/2005RECORD INDEX
05/20/2005RECORD COMPLETED
05/23/2005 It appearing that the complete record on appeal has been filed with this court, it is ORDERED that appellant's brief and the appendix shall be filed within 40 days from the date of this order, and appellee's brief shall be filed within 30 days thereafter. See D.C. App. R. 30, 31. (BY: GP)
06/24/2005APPELLANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF to 30 days. no oppo
06/29/2005 On consideration of appellant's unopposed motion for an extension of time to file the brief, it is ORDERED that the motion is granted and appellant's brief shall be filed on or before August 4, 2005. (BY: GP)
07/22/2005APPELLANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF no oppo 30 days
07/26/2005 On consideration of appellant's unopposed motion for an extension of time to file the brief, it is ORDERED that the motion is granted and appellant's brief and the appendix shall be filed on or before September 6, 2005. Any further requests for extensions of time will be looked upon with disfavor and granted only upon a showing of good cause. (BY: GP)
09/06/2005APPELLANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS/WITHDRAW APPEAL
09/19/2005ORDER GRANT APLT MOTION TO DISMISS/WITHDRAW APPEAL and this appeal is hereby dismissed. See D.C. App. R. 13(b). (BY: ETW) lw
09/19/2005DISMISSED
10/12/2005MANDATE ISSUED