- 1

- Supreme Court
No. 201 8

- 2 82

- A ppeal

. (PC 14

- 436 ) OSJ of Providence, LLC :

v. : Aly T. Diene

. :

O R D E R The defendant, Aly Diene, appeals from an order denying his “ M otion for P ostjudgment
R elief Petition for Perjury

. ” In a previous decision, t his Court addressed Mr. Diene’s appeal from the entry of final judgment in favor of the plaintiff, OSJ of Providence , LLC (OSJ) ; and we
unani mously affirmed that judgment. OSJ of Providence, LLC v. Diene , 154 A.3d 460 , 461

- 62 (R.I. 2017). This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal shou ld not be summarily
decided

. After examining the written and oral submissions of the parties and after a thorough review of the record, we are of the opinion that th is appeal may be resolved withou t further briefing or argument.
As the facts of the unde rlying dispute are detail ed in our previous decision, we sha ll
relate here only the facts that are directly relevant to the present appeal. On May 10, 2017, a fter the Superior Court had entered final judgment in favor of OSJ and after this Court had issue d its opinion affirming that judgment , Mr. Diene filed a “ Motion for Postjudgment Relief Petition for Perjury ” in the Superior Court, alleging that OSJ, through its attorney, had made false statements
and had introduced misleading documents at the Superior Court hearing that was conducted to- 2

-

determine the amount of damages owed to OSJ

. 1 OSJ objected to that motion , contending that
Mr. Diene had failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant postjudgment relief under Rule 60 of the Super ior Court Rules o f Civil P rocedure

. On April 13, 2018, the hearing justice heard
argument on Mr. Diene’s motion , but she reserved issuing a decision at that time so as to give the parties the opportunity to present further arguments

. 2 O n April 1 7 , 2018, Mr. Diene filed another

“ Motion for Postjudgment Relief Petition for Perjury , ” making the same contentions as he had in
his first motion

. O n April 24, 2018 , after hearing argument s as to both the motion filed in May
of 2017 and the motion filed i n April of 2018 , the hea ring justice denied both motions. A n order
to that effect entered , and Mr. Diene appealed. On appeal, Mr. Diene contends: ( 1) that the hearing justice erred by denying his motion for postjudgment relief based on a clerical error ; ( 2) that the hearing just ice erred by denying his motion for postjudgment relief based on new evidence ; and ( 3) that he was “denied a fair trial and his civil right to a fair hearing .” 3 In his written submission to this Court, Mr. Diene does not identify the clerical error or ne w evidence that he alleges warrant ed a grant of postjudgment relief, nor does he explain how he was denied a fair hearing. As we have often said, we “ deem

1 The referenced Superior Court hearing was held in August of 2015 before the entry of final judgment in favor of OSJ. OSJ of Providence, LLC v. Diene , 154 A.3d 460, 46 3 (R.I. 2017).

2 On April 20, 2018, an order entered denying Mr. Diene’s first “ Motion for Postjudgment Relief Petition for Perjury. ” At the hearing on April 24, 2018, the hearing justice not ed that she had signed th at order in error as she remembered tha t she had indicated to the parties that she would reserve her decision until a later date.

3 The day before oral argument, Mr. Diene submitted a document to this Court en titled “Motion to Consider Perjury Based on Newly Discovered Evidence.” Even pres cinding from the fact that this most recent filing is not authorized by the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure , the arguments raised therein were not presented to the Superior Court and , therefore , are not properly before us on appeal. See Adams v. Santander Bank, N.A. , 183 A.3d 544, 548 (R.I. 2018).- 3

-

an issue waived ‘ when a party [s]imply stat[es] an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof * * *.’” A. Salvati Masonry Inc. v. Andreozzi , 151 A.3d 745, 750 (R.I. 2017) (quoting In re Jake G. , 126 A.3d 450, 458 (R.I. 2015) ). Such is the case “[e] ven when a party has properly preserved its alleged error of law in the lower cou rt * * *

. ” McGarry
v. Pielech , 108 A.3d 998, 1005 (R.I. 2015); see Terzian v. Lombardi , 180 A.3d 555, 557 (R.I. 2018). Mr. Diene’s submission to this Court entitled “Notice of Appeal” contain s no cognizable legal argument. Therefore, we hold that each o f Mr. Diene’s arguments on appeal are waived. We conclude by observing that Mr. Diene has clearly had his day in court. I n our considered judgment , “[i]t is time for this litigation to end.” Arena v. City of Providence , 919 A.2d 379, 396 (R.I. 2007); see Gunn v. Union Railroad Co. , 27 R.I. 320, 337, 62 A. 118, 125 (1905).
For the reasons set forth in this order , we affirm the order of the Superior Court

. The record may be returned to that tribunal.

Entered as an Order of this Court, this day of December , 2019. By Order,

Clerk 3 rd

/s/SU

‐ CMS

‐ 02B (revised November 2016) STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

SUPREME COURT

– CLERK’S OFFICE
ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case OSJ of Providence, LLC v. Aly T. Diene.
Case Number No. 2018-282-Appeal. (PC 14-436) Date Order Filed December 3, 2019

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Inde g lia, JJ. Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer From Lower Court Associate Justice Maureen B. Keough

Attorney(s) on Appeal For Plaintiff: Lisa A. Adelman, Esq. For Defendant:
Al y T. Diene, Pro Se