Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Rosemary Ann Lynn v. Andrew George Brown, III, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, No. 19-5062, 19-5063 · judgment February 7, 2020
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Whether Appellees' refusal to serve Petitioner with summons and petition after passage of two years' and seven months divest the district court of personal jurisdiction, venue and subject-matter jurisdiction over petitioner especially, where as here, petitioner never waived jurisdictional defects and never voluntarily appeared, thus rendered district court's orders, adjudications and decrees void Ab Initio due to lack of personal and subject-matters jurisdiction. Whether Fed. Rule 8(a) and civil RICO Statutes required petitioner in her Initial Complaint to allege and prove that Appellees had been convicted of RICO violations before petitioner could move forward with her mail fraud and wire fraud claims. Did the U.S. District Court violate Fed. R. Civ. Procs., Rule 8(a) when it heightened R. 8(a) standard requiring petitioner to prove each element in her Initial Complaint before she could move forward otherewise authorizing the use of the doctrine of sua sponte, although Rule 8(a), plain and simple statement of facts putting the party on notice of claims and what to defend against was clearly setforth in complaints. Does an appellate court have review jurisdiction under Section 1447 contrary to district court dismissal of supplemental joined claims for redress under Section 1367(a) and (c). Whether petitioner is entitled to make discovery without court interference to prove her Complaint claims, especially, where as here, petitioner has never been allowed discovery and the proof remains in custody and control of the Appellees'/Respondents'. Whether an appellate court has a duty to review an inferior court's order for plain error without being requested to do so by pro se appellant. Whether initial filing of a Fed. Rule Civ. Proc., Rule 65(d)(2) Application for Restraining Order and Injunction is automatic the moment the application is filed and binds not only the party defendants,
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Rosemary Ann Lynn
For respondent
Randall Allen Gill
The Gill Law Firm
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Proceedings
- Feb 22 2021Rehearing DENIED.
- Jan 20 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
- Jan 15 2021Response and Motion to Deny Petitioner Rosemary Ann Lynn's Petition for Rehearing, Rehearing En Banc, and Requests for Answer to Issues Raised on Petition for Writ of Certiorari (dated 1/1/21) of Andrew Brown, et al. not accepted for filing. (January 22, 2021 - See Rule 44.3)
- Jan 15 2021Motion to Quash Petitioner Rosemary Ann Lynn’s First Set Of Interrogatories---Directed To Lesa Creveling And Trust Company Of Oklahoma of Andrew Brown, et al. not accepted for filing. (January 22, 2021)
- Jan 15 2021Motion to Quash Petitioner Rosemary Ann Lynn’s First Request for Production of Documents Directed To Randall Gill of Andrew Brown, et al. not accepted for filing. (January 22, 2021)
- Dec 29 2020Response and Motion to Deny Petitioner Rosemary Ann Lynn's Petition for Rehearing, Rehearing En Banc, and Requests for Answer to Issues Raised on Petition for Writ of Certiorari of Andrew Brown, et al. not accepted for filing. (February 03, 2021)
- Dec 11 2020Petition for Rehearing filed.
- Nov 16 2020Petition DENIED.
- Nov 12 2020Motion to Strike Petitioner's Motion to Disqualify Respondents Counsel and Motion for Protective Order and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Andrew Brown, et al. not accepted for filing. (December 17, 2020)
- Oct 28 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/13/2020.
- Oct 28 2020Reply of petitioner Rosemary Lynn filed. (Distributed)
- Oct 14 2020Brief of respondents Andrew Brown, et al. in opposition filed.
- Jun 29 2020Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 14, 2020)