Kotulski v. Mirabelle
| Melissa A. Kotulski |
| Anthony Mirabelle |
| 3:2023cv01368 |
| October 18, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Thomas O Farrish |
| Jeffrey A Meyer |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. § 501 Copyright Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 17, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 56
ORDER. The Court DENIES plaintiff's motion for reconsideration ((Doc. #53 ) of the Court's denial of her motion to correct the jurisdiction to Hartford. Insofar as the motion suggests that Judge Meyer should be recused from this case, the motion does not make a substantial showing of any actual bias or any reasonable question about whether he can be impartial to warrant disqualification under 28 U.S.C. 455(a) or the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. The fact that Judge Meyer is based in New Haven and attended school in New Haven does not furnish a legitimate basis to question his impartiality in this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 11/17/2023. (Lewis, D)
|
| Filing 55 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH PRETRIAL ORDER by Melissa A. Kotulski Regarding Emails to the Court (Kotulski, Melissa) |
|
Filing 54
ORDER RE EMAILS FROM PLAINTIFF. The Court has received numerous emails from plaintiff. If plaintiff wishes to seek relief from the Court, she may file a motion for relief on the docket. She should not send emails to Judge Meyer or to his law clerks, and no such emails will be responded to. No document sent by email will be accepted for filing. If plaintiff has difficulty accessing or filing a document on the docket, then she may send an email requesting assistance to Judge Meyer's courtroom deputy Diahann Lewis at diahann_lewis@ctd.uscourts.gov. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 11/15/2023.(Lewis, D)
|
| Filing 53 MOTION for Reconsideration Hartford by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Kotulski, Melissa) |
|
Filing 52
ORDER. The Court DENIES the motion to amend/correct (Doc. #50 ) on the ground that even if the plaintiff filed this lawsuit in Hartford, it was randomly assigned to Judge Meyer at the New Haven seat of court and therefore any appeal from the Court's judgment arises from the New Haven seat of court. Moreover, plaintiff makes no showing why the designation of Hartford or New Haven makes any difference to the appeal or other proceedings in this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 11/14/2023. (Lewis, D)
|
| Filing 51 NOTICE by Melissa A. Kotulski Registration of her copyright for Gigantor (Registration Number TX 9-326-953; 1st Published November 16, 2022; Effective Date October 2, 2023; Registration Date November 3, 2023) (Attachments: #1 Statement of Material Facts Certificate of Registration of Copyright)(Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 50 MOTION to Amend/Correct CORRECT THE JURISDICTION: HARTFORD by Melissa A. Kotulski.Responses due by 12/4/2023 (Kotulski, Melissa) |
|
Filing 49
ORDER. The Court DENIES plaintiff's motion for release of list of rule changes (Doc. #48 ) for failure to show why such information is necessary for her appeal or available only by means of an order of disclosure by this Court. The motion is premised on plaintiff's mistaken assumption that the Court was required to refer the parties for a settlement conference or for alternative dispute resolution prior to dismissing this action. Although Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the corresponding local rule allow the Court in its discretion to refer the parties for a settlement conference or for alternative dispute resolution, neither rule requires the Court to do so in every case. Here, it was not appropriate for the Court to refer the parties for a settlement conference or for alternative dispute resolution because the plaintiff failed in the first instance to file a complaint that alleges plausible grounds for relief against the defendant. After affording the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard by means of an order to show cause, the Court dismissed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). It is so ordered.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 11/8/2023. (Lewis, D)
|
| Filing 48 MOTION Release of List of Rule Changes (Amendments) History and Comments for Local Rule 16 and Its Complementary Order by Melissa A. Kotulski.Responses due by 11/28/2023 (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 47 NOTICE of Appearance by Melissa A. Kotulski (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 46 NOTICE by Melissa A. Kotulski IFP & FRAP24 Motions Corrected (Kotulski, Melissa) |
|
Filing 43
ORDER. The Court GRANTS plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. #31 , #37 , #39 ) for purposes of her appeal. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 11/1/2023. (Lewis, D)
|
|
Filing 42
AFFIDAVIT In Forma Pauperis for the 2nd Circuit as well as the Notice of Appearance Pro Se for the 2nd Circuit per conversation with 2nd Circuit Clerk. In Forma Pauperis motion entails:My issues on appeal are threefold: 1. Substantial Similarity is not existent as between Plaintiffs Gigantor and the Gigantors presented in previous copyrights therefore giving rise to a statement of a claim for which relief can be granted; 2. Consultation rules at the District Court of Connecticut are too adversarial, particularly where the Court may not consider 16(a) hearings at earlier stages of the proceedings particularly when the parties never came to the table to negotiate a dispute to facilitate settlement and discourage wasteful pretrial activities.through the fault of one of the parties alone; 3. Making in forma pauperis plaintiffs argue if they have stated a claim is unconstitutional for at least three reasonsa. doing so ahead of the 12(b) motions opportunities afforded the Defendants puts the plaintiffs twice in jeopardy in a civil manner because the judge becomes an adversarial party whereby no controversy arises as between the judge and plaintiff; b. the plaintiff is not afforded due process when proceeding against two de facto Defendants; and such a provisions goes beyond the metes and bounds of the necessary and proper powers of Congress. The Appellate Court should review this case de novo for the 16(a) hearings at earlier stages of trial assertion and the constitutional question concerning failure to state a claim orders by judges under 1915(e)(2)(B). Whereas the Second Circuit should review this case clearly erroneous for its misapplication of the substantial similarity requirement. Updated form to include student loan and headers for Issues & Financials Sections. THANK YOU very much everyone at the District Court. Signed By Melissa A. Kotulski (Plaintiff) / Sue Schroeder (Clerk of Wethersfield) filed by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Appearance Submitted to the 2nd Circuit)(Kotulski, Melissa)
|
| Filing 39 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis FRAP 24 Motion with notarization forthcoming by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 45 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE RE: INDEX AND RECORD ON APPEAL re: #44 Amended Notice of Appeal. The attached docket sheet is hereby certified as the entire Index/Record on Appeal in this matter and electronically sent to the Court of Appeals, with the exception of any manually filed documents as noted below. Dinah Milton Kinney, Clerk. Documents manually filed not included in this transmission: none (Chartier, A) |
| Filing 44 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL amending #40 Notice of Appeal by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Chartier, A) |
| Filing 41 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE RE: INDEX AND RECORD ON APPEAL re: #40 Notice of Appeal. The attached docket sheet is hereby certified as the entire Index/Record on Appeal in this matter and electronically sent to the Court of Appeals, with the exception of any manually filed documents as noted below. Dinah Milton Kinney, Clerk. Documents manually filed not included in this transmission: none (Chartier, A) |
| Filing 40 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #28 Judgment, by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Chartier, A) |
| Filing 38 NOTICE of Settlement Process Proposal offered to Anthony Mirabelle (Defendant) by Melissa A. Kotulski (Plaintiff) via Officer Marsden (Prospect Police Department of Connecticut) because Attorney for Mirabelle Not Presented to Her by Melissa A. Kotulski (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 37 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Corrected with Form 4 & FRAP 24 Motion Forthcoming within seven calendar days by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 36 NOTICE by Melissa A. Kotulski Letter to Judge Meyer with list of issues likely to be considered above: 1.1915 statement of a claim: Substantial Similarity not existent as between my Gigantor and the Gigantor presented in previous copyrights; 2.Obfuscatory standards presenting another standard after 1915 order was submitted 3.16(a) Hearings applicability at earlier stages of the proceedings; 4.Whether consultation rules at the District Court of Connecticut are too adversarial; 5.Judicial Assignments & neutrality as between parties; 6.opportunity to be heard; 7.constitutional question concerning IFP; and 8.any other matter that may arise through research in the next couple weeks (I will do my best to notify of these matters). (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 35 NOTICE by Melissa A. Kotulski 2nd Circuit Pro Se Scheduling Notification(Non-Agency Case) (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 34 NOTICE by Melissa A. Kotulski Civil Appeal Transcript Information (Form D) (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 33 ENTERED IN ERROR: NOTICE by Melissa A. Kotulski Notice of Appeal to the 2nd Circuit (supersedes Docket #30 due to typo Discoursing = Discouraging & Bridge = Bridgeport): Substantial similarity of a Copyright is the point of contention between the Court & the Plaintiff. Other copyright is not even in contention with Plaintiff's. The judge never provided opportunity to be heard, & avoided the constitutional question concerning IFP. Further, the judge, like most in the CTD, did not allow for any conciliatory mechanisms between Plaintiff & Defendant, resultant of the problem with local rules on the matter, discouraging consultation & trickling into the approaches of the state. Judge should have been Bridgeport-based for neutrality btwn parties. (Kotulski, Melissa) Modified on 11/2/2023 to add Entered in Error (Chartier, A). |
| Filing 32 NOTICE by Melissa A. Kotulski CM/ECF Pro Se Filing User Request Form 2nd Circuit (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 31 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis for Appeal to the 2nd Circuit by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 30 ENTERED IN ERROR: NOTICE by Melissa A. Kotulski Notice of Appeal = Substantial similarity of a Copyright is the point of contention between the Court & the Plaintiff. Other copyright is not even in contention with Plaintiff's. The judge never provided opportunity to be heard, & avoided the constitutional question concerning IFP. Further, the judge, like most in the CTD, did not allow for any conciliatory mechanisms between Plaintiff & Defendant, resultant of the problem with local rules on the matter, discoursing consultation & trickling into the approaches of the state. Judge should have been Bridge-based for neutrality btwn parties. (Kotulski, Melissa) Modified on 11/1/2023 to add Entered in Error. Will refile using Notice of Appeal event. (Chartier, A). |
| Filing 29 AO 121 Report on the Determination of an Action re: Copyright Form Completed (Attachments: #1 Exhibit) (Lewis, D) |
| Filing 28 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Anthony Mirabelle against Melissa A. Kotulski, the complaint is dismissed and the case is closed.For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms/all-forms/appeals_forms Signed by Clerk on 10/31/2023.(Lewis, D) |
|
Filing 27
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against a former lover claiming that he has infringed on her copyrighted use of the term "Gigantor" to describe a "girthy penis." Doc. #1 . On October 24, 2023, the Court entered an order to show cause why the complaint should not be subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). To establish copyright infringement, "two elements must be proven: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original." Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir.2010). Doc. # 13 . Plaintiff has filed a lengthy response to the order to show cause. Doc. #26 . But the plaintiff acknowledges that the term "Gigantor" has been previously copyrighted, and she otherwise fails to allege facts to show that she has a valid and original copyright in the use of that term or that the defendant has actually violated or infringed on her copyright. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). In light of the Court's dismissal of this action, the Court DENIES as moot all other pending motions (Docs. #2 , #11 , #24 ). The Clerk of Court shall close this case. It is so ordered.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 10/31/2023. (Lewis, D)
|
| JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY - FOR COUNSEL ONLY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Lewis, D) |
| Filing 26 RESPONSE TO by Melissa A. Kotulski filed by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 25 NOTICE of Related Case by Melissa A. Kotulski (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 24 MOTION to Withdraw Docket #11 Motion for Clarification of Docket #3 (FRCP 7.1 disclosure statement with each pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court as well as party's first appearance). As this is currently a federal question case, diversity jurisdiction does not necessarily arise but may do so in subsequent amended complaint(s) by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 23 RESPONSE by Melissa A. KotulskiReport on Copyright Form due by November 1, 2023 pursuant to Notice to "Counsel" from the Clerk in order to be compliant with 17 U.S.C. 508 (no option for "Report on Copyright Form" in "Other Documents" as directed by the Clerk Chartier as such Plaintiff opted to file under a Response). (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 22 NOTICE by Melissa A. Kotulski Docket #19 and Docket #20 delayed service by October 30, 2023; Cease-and-Desist Letter for Mirabelle (Kotulski, Melissa) |
|
Filing 21
ORDER. The Court DENIES the motions for reconsideration (Docs. #19 , #20 ) for failure to show good cause for reconsideration. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 10/26/2023. (Lewis, D)
|
| Filing 20 MOTION for Reconsideration FRCP 16(A) Hearing as soon as possible within the procedural posture of this case by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 19 MOTION for Reconsideration of Docket #18 Extension of Time, MOTION for Clarification of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) narrowing question by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Kotulski, Melissa) |
|
Filing 18
ORDER. The Court DENIES the motion for extension of time to file a response to the order to show cause (Doc. #15 ). Because it is plaintiff who has chosen to seek relief from the Court, it is not too much to ask that the plaintiff be prepared to promptly file a response showing why the action should not be dismissed. The fact that plaintiff believes this litigation may interfere with her wish to make weekly blog posts is not sufficient reason for a continuance. The Court otherwise DENIES plaintiff's motion to compel alternative dispute resolution. If plaintiff wished to pursue alternative dispute resolution, then she should not have filed this federal lawsuit in the first place. If plaintiff has reconsidered her intention to proceed with this lawsuit, she may file a motion to withdraw the complaint. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 10/25/2023. (Lewis, D)
|
| Filing 17 NOTICE by Melissa A. Kotulski Letter to Judge Meyer re: auto-fill of response deadline for motion to compel (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE by Melissa A. Kotulski submission of Waiver of Service Request to Anthony Mirabelle via Officer Marsden of the Prospect Police Department (Connecticut) due to her good faith belief that Mirabelle has not had effective assistance of counsel to this time (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Complaint included with Service Waiver Request, #2 Exhibit Waiver of Service Form Included with the Mailing)(Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 15 MOTION to Compel Alternate Dispute Resolution (Responses due by 11/14/2023, ), MOTION for Clarification of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) Order from Docket #13, MOTION for Extension of Time until November 29, 2023 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) memorandum of law in response to Docket #13 Order by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH PRETRIAL ORDER by Melissa A. Kotulski Electronic filing order (Dkt. 7), Order on Pretrial Deadlines (Dkt.8), Confidentiality Order (Dkt. 9) (Kotulski, Melissa) |
|
Filing 13
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED. It appears that the complaint is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff has not alleged that she has validly copyrighted the term in question--"Gigantor"--and has not alleged facts that would give rise to a claim of activity amounting to copyright infringement. See Peter F. Gaito Architecture LLC v. Simone Development Corp., 602 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2010). But if plaintiff has grounds to show why the complaint should not be dismissed, she may file a response to this order to show cause by October 31, 2023 explaining why the complaint alleges plausible grounds for relief. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 10/24/2023. (Parker, B.)
|
| Filing 12 AFFIDAVIT re: Clarification of Docket #3 in support of Docket #11 Motion Signed By Melissa A. Kotulski filed by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Kotulski, Melissa) |
| Filing 11 MOTION for Clarification of Docket #3 (Notice re: Disclosure Statement) by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Kotulski, Melissa) |
|
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. SELF-REPRESENTED FILERS ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE JUDGE'S STANDARD ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER WHICH IS ATTACHED. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 10/20/2023.(Lewis, D)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER granting Motion for leave to participate in electronic filing (Doc. #4 ). Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 10/20/2023. (Lewis, D)
|
| Filing 10 Notice to Counsel: For the Clerk to comply with the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 508, you are requested to complete the top half of the attached form and efile it with the Clerk in ECF as an Other Document > Report on Copyright Form within 14 days. Copyright Form due by 11/1/2023. Signed by Clerk on 10/18/2023.(Chartier, A) |
|
Filing 9
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 10/18/2023.(Chartier, A)
|
|
Filing 8
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 12/17/2023 Discovery due by 4/18/2024 Dispositive Motions due by 5/23/2024 Signed by Clerk on 10/18/2023.(Chartier, A)
|
| Filing 5 Consent to Electronic Notice by Melissa A. Kotulski (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 4 MOTION By Self-Represented Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 3 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 10/18/2023. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Anthony Mirabelle, filed by Melissa A. Kotulski. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (Peterson, M) |
| Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer and Judge Thomas O. Farrish added. (Shafer, J.) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Kotulski v. Mirabelle | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Melissa A. Kotulski | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Anthony Mirabelle | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
