674 Fed.Appx. 204 (3rd Cir. 2016), 15-1053, Baldinger v. Ferri

• Docket Nº: 15-1053
• Citation: 674 Fed.Appx. 204
• Opinion Judge: PER CURIAM
• Party Name: BRUCE E. BALDINGER v. ANTONIO FERRI; MATTEO PATISSO; NATIONAL FRAUD CONSTABLE a/k/a the National Fraud Constable Matteo Patisso, Appellant
• Attorney: BRUCE E. BALDINGER, Plaintiff - Appellee, Pro se, Morristown, NJ. For BRUCE E. BALDINGER, Plaintiff - Appellee: Howard A. Teichman, Esq., The Law Offices of Bruce E.Baldinger, Morristown, NJ. ANTONIO FERRI, Defendant, Pro se, Cedarhurst, NY. MATTEO PATISSO, Defendant - Appellant, Pro se, Huntingt...
• Judge Panel: Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
• Case Date: December 20, 2016
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Page 204

674 Fed.Appx. 204 (3rd Cir. 2016)

BRUCE E. BALDINGER

v.

ANTONIO FERRI; MATTEO PATISSO; NATIONAL FRAUD CONSTABLE a/k/a the National Fraud Constable Matteo Patisso, Appellant

No. 15-1053

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

December 20, 2016

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 14, 2016,

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Editorial Note:

This opinion is not regarded as Precedents which bind the court under Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedure Rule 5.7. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-10-cv-03122). District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan.

BRUCE E. BALDINGER, Plaintiff - Appellee, Pro se, Morristown, NJ.

For BRUCE E. BALDINGER, Plaintiff - Appellee: Howard A. Teichman, Esq., The Law Offices of Bruce E.Baldinger, Morristown, NJ.

ANTONIO FERRI, Defendant, Pro se, Cedarhurst, NY.

MATTEO PATISSO, Defendant - Appellant, Pro se, Huntington Station, NY.

Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION ^[*]

PER CURIAM

In 2010, Bruce Baldinger, the plaintiff-appellee, brought a diversity action in the

Page 205

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Baldinger, an attorney, alleged that the defendants, including Matteo Patisso, disseminated false information and interfered with his law practice. Baldinger moved for default judgment. Following an evidentiary hearing, the District Court granted the motion, awarding more than one million dollars to Baldinger and imposing an injunction on Patisso. Patisso moved for reconsideration and filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The District Court denied both motions, Patisso appealed, and we affirmed. Baldinger v. Ferri, 541 Fed.Appx. 219, 222 (3d Cir. 2013) (not precedential).

Undeterred, Patisso continued to seek relief from the entry of judgment. As relevant here, on July 21, 2014, Patisso filed a motion under Rule 60(b) seeking to dismiss the complaint, to dissolve the judgment due to fraud upon the court, and to recuse Judge Sheridan. By order entered November 3, 2014, the District Court denied that motion on the merits and ordered that Patisso must submit a request and obtain approval prior to filing any new motions or applications. Patisso sought leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The District Court denied his request on November 19, 2014, providing a handwritten notation on the motion itself that " [t]his matter is nearly identical to a prior motion which I denied; and I ordered any subsequent filings must be pre-approved by this Court. Since it was not pre-approved, it is denied." (Dist. Ct. Doc. No. 320). Shortly thereafter, on December 3, 2014, Patisso submitted a letter, again requesting permission to file a motion for reconsideration. (Dist. Ct. Doc. No. 324). By order entered December 3, 2014, the District Court denied the request, stating, " [a]s previously noted, Mr. Patisso continues to seek relief on matters that have been previously determined. This is another example of [the] same. As such, the request to review the above orders is denied." Patisso appealed.^[1]

The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Patisso's December 3, 2014 request to file a motion for reconsideration. " The law of the case doctrine 'posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.'" See Farina v. Nokia Inc., 625 F.3d 97, 117 n.21 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); see also Skretvedt v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 372 F.3d 193, 203 n.13 (3d Cir. 2004) (" Under the mandate rule, a species of...