Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

IN RE RENAISSANCE BROADCASTING CORP., 83-3996. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. New Jersey Number: infdco20160204c24 Visitors: 19
Filed: Feb. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 02, 2016
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION MEMORANDUM ORDER ANNE E. THOMPSON , District Judge . On November 24, 2015, prose Appellant Donald C. McMeans ("McMeans") filed a motion to vacate an order from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court issued in 1983, on behalf of Renaissance Broadcasting Corporation ("RBC"). (ECF No. 1). McMeans had previously sought and been denied this relief in 1983, 1985, 1995, and 2006. See In re Renaissance Broadcasting Corp., Civ. No. 05-4879 (D.N.J. Apr. 3, 2006) (order denying various motio
More

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM ORDER

On November 24, 2015, prose Appellant Donald C. McMeans ("McMeans") filed a motion to vacate an order from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court issued in 1983, on behalf of Renaissance Broadcasting Corporation ("RBC"). (ECF No. 1). McMeans had previously sought and been denied this relief in 1983, 1985, 1995, and 2006. See In re Renaissance Broadcasting Corp., Civ. No. 05-4879 (D.N.J. Apr. 3, 2006) (order denying various motions made by Plaintiff); McMeans v. Township of Waterford, No. 85-1792, slip op. at 4 (D.N.J. Oct. 3, 1995); McMeans v. Township of Waterford, No. 85-1782, slip op. at 13 (D.N.J. July 1, 1985); In re Renaissance Broadcasting Corp., No. 83-2996 (D.N.J. Dec. 7, 1983) (order affirming the Bankruptcy Court's Trustee Order). Considering these prior cases, the Court found that McMeans' suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and denied McMeans' motion to vacate. (ECF No. 5). The case was correspondingly closed on January 28, 2016.

On January 29, 2016, McMeans filed a request for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the Clerk of the Court had neglected to attach some of the items McMeans had filed with his original motion, and mislabeled some of the other items he filed. (ECF No. 7). McMeans also took issue with certain notations made on the Docket Report. (Id.). Given the prior proceedings in 1983, 1985, 1995, and 2006 that allowed McMeans the opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the issues presented in this case, the Court finds that a stay of proceedings is not warranted. Therefore, McMeans' motion will be denied. If McMeans wishes to file a brief bringing to the Court's attention any matters he feels were overlooked, he may file a Motion for Reconsideration within the appropriate time period.

At the same time McMeans filed his request for a stay of proceedings, he also filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 8). Because the case has been closed, that motion will also be denied.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer