Sasson v. Kravit

• Citation: 370 Wis.2d 787,882 N.W.2d 870 (Table)
• Decision Date: 21 June 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2015AP618.,2015AP618.
• Parties: Ralph SASSON, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Stephen KRAVIT, Aaron Aizenberg, Howard Weitzman, Jeremiah Reynolds, Timothy Hansen, James Barton and Creative Artists Agency, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendants–Respondents, Does 1–50, inclusive, Defendant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

370 Wis.2d 787
882 N.W.2d 870 (Table)

Ralph SASSON, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
Stephen KRAVIT, Aaron Aizenberg, Howard Weitzman, Jeremiah Reynolds, Timothy Hansen, James Barton and Creative Artists Agency, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendants–Respondents,

Does 1–50, inclusive, Defendant.

No. 2015AP618.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

June 21, 2016.

¶ 1 PER CURIAM.

Ralph Sasson appeals from two orders of the trial court. The first is dated February 10, 2015, granting the defendants' motions to dismiss/motions for summary judgment, granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to file documents under seal, and granting defendants' motion to preclude plaintiff from filing future lawsuits against defendants without first obtaining leave from the court. The second order is dated March 27, 2015, denying the plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment.

¶ 2 This is the second of two related lawsuits filed by Sasson, and it is also his second appeal. In his first lawsuit against professional baseball player Ryan Braun; Braun's sports agent, Onesimo Balelo; and Balelo's agency, Creative Artists Agency, LLC (CAA), the trial court (the Honorable Paul R. Van Grunsven) dismissed all of his claims as a sanction for his egregious conduct and bad faith and ordered attorneys' fees for the defendants. Sasson appealed that order and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. We affirmed in Sasson v. Braun, No.2014 AP1707, unpublished slip op. (WI App June 25, 2015) (Sasson I ), review denied, 2016 WI 2, 365 Wis.2d 743, 872 N.W.2d 669.

¶ 3 While the first lawsuit was on appeal, the defendants sought and obtained a contempt finding from Judge Van Grunsven due to Sasson's release of Balelo's deposition, which was contrary to the court's “standing seal order.” Shortly after Sasson I concluded, Sasson filed this lawsuit against Braun's and Balelo's attorneys from the first case and the agency that represented Balelo, alleging: (1) civil conspiracy to commit extortion; (2) abuse of process; (3) false imprisonment; and (4) malicious prosecution. Each of his claims arose out of his contention that the attorneys brought a “malicious and improper” contempt motion against him in the first lawsuit.¹

¶ 4 The trial court in the second lawsuit (the Honorable Christopher R. Foley) dismissed all four of the claims, concluding that they were barred for three reasons: (1) issue preclusion; (2) failure to state a claim; and (3) qualified immunity. The trial court further found that this lawsuit was frivolous and imposed a sanction of restrictions on future filings by Sasson as well as an order for attorneys' fees.

¶ 5 Sasson appeals, arguing that: (1) the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because his claims were legally sufficient and material factual disputes existed; (2) the trial court misused its discretion in finding Sasson made a judicial admission when he agreed on the record that he had been found in contempt; (3) the trial court erred in finding Sasson's claims to be barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion; (4) the trial court erred in finding he had engaged in a pattern of frivolous litigation and in finding Sasson's claims to be frivolous in this case; and (5) the trial court misused its discretion in viewing Sasson's motion for relief from judgment as a motion for reconsideration.

¶ 6 We agree with the trial court and affirm. We conclude that each of Sasson's claims here is based on faulty factual and legal premises, namely, Sasson's arguments that: (1) he was never subject to a “standing seal order” in the first lawsuit prohibiting him from releasing the deposition; and (2) he was never found in contempt in the first lawsuit for releasing the deposition, and even if he was found in contempt, he should not have been. Because the record is clear that Sasson was found in contempt in the first lawsuit and never appealed the contempt finding, we need not revisit that issue. And because our decision in Sasson I clearly established that he was subject to the “standing seal order” in the first lawsuit and properly sanctioned with the dismissal of all claims as a sanction for his egregious conduct and bad faith, we need not (and cannot) revisit that issue. See Cirilli v. Country Ins. & Fin. Servs., 2013 WI App 44, ¶ 8, 347 Wis.2d 481, 830 N.W.2d 234 (citation omitted) (issue preclusion prevents relitigation of issues that have actually been litigated in a prior proceeding).

¶ 7 As a result, all of Sasson's claims here fail because of issue preclusion and failure to state a claim. Accordingly, we agree with the defendants and the trial court and affirm the dismissal, findings of frivolity, sanctions, and award of attorneys' fees.² We remand to the trial court solely for determination of reasonable attorneys' fees.

BACKGROUND

¶ 8 At the outset, we note that much of both lawsuits was filed under seal in the trial court. Our previous decision in Sasson I was a per curiam, as is this. While we go into some of the background from Sasson's first lawsuit, we principally quote from our decision in Sasson I in addition to the procedural background relevant to the resolution here. As we stated in Sasson I: “For purposes of our analysis, it is not important to know the nature of the claims or the underlying factual allegations, except to know that one of the claims against Braun was for libel.” Sasson I, No.2014 AP1707, unpublished slip op., ¶ 2 (WI App June 25, 2015).

¶ 9 Sasson filed his first lawsuit, pro se, in Milwaukee County Circuit Court on July 31, 2013. The Honorable Paul R. Van Grunsven presided over that first case. Attorney Stephen Kravit and Attorney Aaron Aizenberg represented CAA and Balelo, and Attorneys Hansen, Barton, Weitzman and Reynolds served as legal counsel for Braun in the first lawsuit and on appeal in Sasson I. Sasson represented himself (as he continues to do), alleging that he was a law student when he filed his first action in 2013.

¶ 10 Judge Van Grunsven dismissed the case on June 11, 2014. Sasson filed a notice of appeal of that order on July 22, 2014, and of the trial court's August 11, 2014, order denying his motion to vacate or reconsider. We affirmed in a decision released June 25, 2015, stating:

Ralph Sasson appeals the circuit court's order dismissing his lawsuit with prejudice as a sanction for Sasson's bad faith and egregious misconduct in litigating his claims ... We conclude that the circuit court reasonably exercised its discretion in imposing the sanction, and also that the circuit court properly denied Sasson's reconsideration motion.

Sasson I, No.2014 AP1707, unpublished slip op. (WI App June 25, 2015).

¶ 11 We specifically rejected Sasson's claims that he had not violated two specific seal orders from the trial court. We referred to the first one as the “standing seal order.” Id., ¶¶ 15, 21. We noted that Sasson never denied publicly releasing Balelo's deposition but instead argued that the trial court had not ordered that deposition to be sealed. Id., ¶ 22. We concluded that while the “standing seal order” was ambiguous as to whether it applied to deposition testimony, Sasson's own statements at the hearing “sufficiently clarified that disclosing Balelo's deposition testimony to a third party would run afoul of the order the court planned to issue.” Id., ¶ 24. Further, we found that “Sasson does not dispute that during his deposition testimony he indicated that he thought deposition testimony was protected by the standing seal order.” Id.

¶ 12 As to the second seal order, a subsequent oral order specific to Balelo's deposition, we noted that Sasson stated on the record of the Balelo deposition that he agreed the deposition would be “confidential.” Id., ¶ 26. We noted that the trial court then expressly ordered: “The Court will order the deposition transcript sealed.” And we labeled as frivolous Sasson's argument that “will” meant that the order would not take effect until some future court action. Id.

¶ 13 We concluded that in releasing discovery materials under seal, Sasson acted intentionally and in bad faith, and we affirmed the trial court's findings in that regard based on all of the issues we had already addressed in the opinion including:

• his lack of professionalism in failing to cooperate with the other attorneys despite repeated warnings from the court;

• his deposition testimony “replete with expletives and informality”;

• his unsubstantiated libel allegations;

• his breach of the seal orders;

• his violation of an order to compel discovery responses; and

• his misuse of legal process in revealing the Balelo deposition.³

Id., ¶ 61.

¶ 14 The one issue Sasson never raised in Sasson I is the one on which most of his entire second lawsuit is based, and the one he raises in this appeal, namely, whether he was properly found in contempt by Judge Van Grunsven in July of 2014. The procedural history of that contempt motion follows.

¶ 15 Judge Van Grunsven dismissed Sasson's claims on June 11, 2014, finding that he had intentionally violated the court's seal order by releasing a deposition, stating as follows:

The seal order would be virtually useless if it did not prevent the parties from verbally disclosing the confidential information contained in the sealed record....

....

Sasson's disclosure of Balelo's sealed deposition testimony was done intentionally and with conscious disregard for the seal order issued by this Court ...

¶ 16 Judge Van Grunsven next discussed...