Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-14-01500/USCOURTS-ca10-14-01500-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

JON A. GOODWIN, an individual, directly 

and derivatively in the right of and for the 

benefit of Barra Partners, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARCIA ANN BRUGGEMAN-HATCH,

an individual; SEAMUS JOHN PAUL 

HATCH, an individual; MICHAEL 

DOUGLAS BOCK, an individual; ARAN 

STRATEGIC FINANCE, LLC, a limited 

liability company; DAVID MARK 

JARGIELLO, an individual; BARRY S. 

LEVIN, an individual; ROBERT A. 

ESPEN, an individual; MATTHEW L. 

LARRABEE, an individual; HELLER 

EHRMAN LLP, a limited liability 

partnership; TIMOTHY ROBBINS, an 

individual; THOMAS F. VILLENEUVE, 

an individual; KENNETH ROBERT 

MCVAY, an individual; IVAN 

ALEXANDER GAVIRIA, an individual; 

DANIEL JURG NIEHANS, an individual; 

DANIEL E. O'CONNOR, an individual; 

SCOTT ARMIENTI, an individual; 

JONATHAN M. GLEASON, an 

individual; SCOTT C. DETTMER, an 

individual; ROBERT V. GUNDERSON, 

JR., an individual; MICHELLE 

ROBERTSON, an individual; 

GUNDERSON DETTMER STOUGH 

VILLENEUVE FRANKLIN & 

HACHIGIAN, LLP, a limited liability 

partnership; MILES FREDERICK 

EHRLICH, an individual; RAMSEY & 

No. 14-1500

(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-02973-REB-MEH)

(D. Colo.)

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 21, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-1500 Document: 01019434338 Date Filed: 05/21/2015 Page: 1 
2

EHRLICH, LLP, a limited liability 

partnership; DENELLE MARIE DIXONTHAYER, an individual; JOHN DANIEL 

SHARP, an individual; MICHAEL 

ALEXANDER KAHN, an individual; 

DIANE D. BLICK, an individual; 

FOLGER LEVIN KAHN, LLP, a limited 

liability partnership; RICHARD S. 

WARLEY, an individual; SAVVIS, INC., 

a corporation; TINA LOUISE 

SCATUORCHIO-GOODWIN, an 

individual; HARRY STORER SCOTT, an 

individual; NEVILLE L. JOHNSON, an 

individual; DOUGLAS L. JOHNSON, an 

individual; LAN PHOJNG VU, an 

individual; JOHN DALE FOWLER, an 

individual; JONATHAN MARTIN 

TURCO, an individual; VIKTORIYA 

CASSIS, an individual; SHAKE 

ANDREASIAN, an individual; JOHNSON 

& JOHNSON, LLP, a limited liability 

partnership; PAUL WILLIAM TWEED, an 

individual; KATHRYN HELENA LOUISE 

MATHEWS, an individual; PAUL 

TWEED LLP, a business entity; 

JOHNSONS LAW FIRM, a business 

entity; VAL COOK, an individual; CITY 

OF REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA; 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO; TWITTER, INC., a 

corporation; SIMON LUK, an individual; 

RUSSELL A. STAMETS, an individual; 

JEFFREY L SCHOTTLER, an individual; 

JOHN C. GONZALEZ, an individual; 

KANNAN P. SRINIVASAN, an 

individual; MAYNARD "JR." GAMEZ, an 

individual; SEAN HART, an individual; 

EMILY WARREN CHURCH, an 

individual; ARAN VENTURES, a business 

entity, from unknown; ARAN 

DEVELOPMENT, a business entity, from 

unknown; ERIC VAUGHN TRAUT, an 

individual; DIANA BIAFORA 

Appellate Case: 14-1500 Document: 01019434338 Date Filed: 05/21/2015 Page: 2 
3

SPARAGNA, an individual; SUE M. 

KAPLAN, an individual; BARRA 

PARTNERS, LLC, actually named as a 

nominal defendant,

 Defendants - Appellees.

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BACHARACH and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on the Pro Se Plaintiff-Appellant’s Motion for 

Enlargement of Opening Brief; Oral Arguments Requested. The appellant asks the court 

for leave to file an opening brief of 55,000 words – 41,000 more words than are allowed 

by our rules. Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7). He also asks us to hear oral argument on his 

motion.

Upon consideration, the appellant’s motion is denied in its entirety. 

Despite the court’s abundant patience, the appellant has consistently ignored our

rules and orders. He has now risked filing a motion to file a profoundly oversized brief on 

the last day of a very generous extension period, rather than complying with the court’s 

directions to file a brief that conforms to our rules. See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 

1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting that “this court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties 

follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”). We previously warned 

the appellant that if he did not file a compliant opening brief within the final time period 

allowed we would dismiss the appeal. Because no compliant opening brief has been filed 

Appellate Case: 14-1500 Document: 01019434338 Date Filed: 05/21/2015 Page: 3 
4

and the deadline to do so has passed, this appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution. 

10th Cir. R. 42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 14-1500 Document: 01019434338 Date Filed: 05/21/2015 Page: 4