NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1



# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 17, 2020 *

Decided August 28, 2020



### Before

D IANE S. S YKES
, Chief Judge

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK
, Circuit Judge

D IANE P. W OOD
, Circuit Judge

No. 19

- 2617

V LADIMIR M. G OROKHOVSKY and

I GOR K AIUROV
, Plaintiff s

- Appellant s ,

v

.

E LEANORA S TEFANTSOVA
, Defendant

- Appellee

. Appeal from the United

States District Court for the

Eastern District of Wisconsin

.

No. 19

- CV

- 453

- JPS J.P. Stadtmueller

, Judge

.

Order

Vladim ir Gorokhovsky and Igor Kaiurov ask us to review the district court’s dismissal of their case and the denial of their motion for sanctions against the defend ant. W e decline to do so. In thi s court, Gorokhovsky (purporting to represent Kaiurov as well as himself) filed multiple false certifications and failed to furnish required documents.

* Appellee did not file a brief and ignored three orders to show cause. We have decided to resolve the case without argument in light of the considerations discussed in the text. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).No. 19

- 2617 Page 2

And Gorokhovsky, an attorney, submitted docu ments so marginally competent that they raise concerns about his ability to represent others . W e affirm the dis tri ct court’s judgment without addressing the merits , and we direct Gorokhovsky to show cause why he should not be further sanc tioned

.

Gorokhovsky and Kaiurov brought this action in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging that the defendant, a Russian ci tizen who resides in New York, defamed and defrauded them when she lived in China years ago. Concluding that the defendant lacked the required minimum contacts with Wisconsin, the district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. It then denied plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions against defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

Gorokhovsky and Kaiurov appealed, but myriad problems marred their filings. Three times, Gorokhovsky was ordered to amend his docketing statement because he failed to supply adequate information about his own citizenship and that of the other parties, despite claiming federal jurisdiction in part based on di versity. It then took four tries and multiple extensions to file a brief that the clerk’s office would accept.

Although the clerk’s office ultimately accepted appellants’ brief and separate appendix, many of the certifications included in the brief are fa lse . First, Gorokhovsky certified that the bri ef satisfies the safe harbor in Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7), (g) , which is available to briefs of 30 pages or fewer . But that certification was false because eight pages that count to ward the limit are unnumbered in the paper copies of the brief, and Gorokhovsky ignored the unnumbered pages when certifying that the brief comes within the safe harbor

. See Rule 32 (f) (enumerating sections of appellate brief that are excluded from page limi t); see also Vermillion v. C orizon Health, Inc. , 906 F.3d 696, 697 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Only those matters

... mentioned in Rule 32(f)’s list are excluded [from an appellate brief’s page count]. Everything else counts.”). Leaving pages unnumbered

deceived the clerk’s of fice, which apparen tly looked only at the number on the last

page. Gorokhovsky is an experienced lawyer with no excuse for engaging in trickery by filing a document with unnumbered pages ; this egregious be havior deserves a penalt y

. See Jaworski v. Master Hand Contractors, Inc ., 882 F.3d 686, 690 (7th Cir. 2018).

Gorokhovsky also falsely certified compliance with Circuit Rule 30(a), which requires a brief to include a short appendix containing the judgment or order under review, plu s a copy of the district court’s opinion . T he clerk’s office does not check whether an appendix complies with Rule 30(a). Instead it relies on counsel’s honesty. If the certificate is in its proper form, this court accepts the brief “without independent inquir y into compliance with Rule 30(a).” Sambrano v. Mabus , 663 F.3d 879, 881 (7th Cir. 2011). Gorokhovsky certified that the paper briefs contained the short appendix and,No. 19

- 2617 Page 3

indeed, some of the briefs they filed had one. Those were rejected on other grounds,

how ever, and most copies of the brief finally accepted lacked an appendix (though they still bore the certification). That, too, is grounds for dismissal or summary affirmance. See, e.g., Snipes v. Illinois Department of Corrections , 291 F.3d 460, 464 (7th Ci r. 2002)

.

There was another serious problem: appellants’ paper briefs differ from those filed

elec tronically . Though Gorokhovsky certified that the text of the electronic copy of the

brief is “identical” to the paper copy, there are alterations in the foo tnotes, the formatting (including the pagination) , and the dates in some of the certifications. A ny difference between electronic and paper versions is forbidden. See, e.g., Khan v. Midwestern University

, 879 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2018) ; B.G. v. Chicago Board of Education , 906 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2018) . This false certification, like the others, is grounds for dismissing the appeal or summarily affirming the district cou rt. See, e.g., Jaworski , 882 F.3d at 690 (su mmary affirmance when certification was a misrepresenta tion ).

The substance of Gorokhovsky’s filings in the district court and on appeal is similarly wretched. In the district court he proffered, as evidence

, email correspondence protected by attorney

- cli ent privilege, with no indication of a waiver by his former client. The district court said it would not consider the evidence, but Gorokhovsky attached it again to his motion to sanction the defendant. And apart from the multiple failures to provide a rul e

- compliant document, Gorokhovsky did not supply what this court expect s from a practi tioner. The brief raises frivolous arguments (for example, that Wisconsin has general personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a Russian citizen who has

never set foot i n or done busi ness in the state); presses a civil RICO claim though the complaint contains not a whiff of any “enterprise” or racketeering ac tivity, see 18 U.S.C. §1962(c); fails to include a single argument on behalf of Kaiurov; and contains countless
typ ographical, spelling, and grammatical errors.

Gorokhovsky’s incompetent and dishonest conduct on his own behalf implies that

he is not an appropriate person to protect the interests of clients . In other cases, we have ordered lawyers whose ineptitude may have injured their clients to show cause why they should not be suspended from practice or disbarred. See Fed. R. App . P. 46; see also, e.g., B.G. , 906 F.3d at 633

– 34 ; Sambrano , 663 F.3d at 882.

But Gorokhovsky is not a member of our bar and therefore cannot be disciplined under Rule 46. He applied for admission in 2016, but his application was denied in light of his disciplinary history, which includes a suspension for fraud and other conduct

tha t the Supreme Court of Wisconsin characterized as criminal. In re Gorokhovsky , 2013 WI 100 (Dec. 17 , 2013). Although Gorokhovsky is not a member of our bar, he purport s to represent Kaiurov and thus has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.No. 19

- 2617 Page 4

Gorokhov sky is a member of the bar of the Eastern District of Wisconsin and the General Bar (but not the Trial Bar) of the Northern District of Illinois. We are sending copies of this order to those courts, as well as the State Bar of Wisconsin, so that they

can c onsider whether he is fit to represent the interests of clients.

Although we cannot discipline Gorokhovsky under Rule 46, we can impose penalties under Fed. R. App. P. 38. We give Gorokhovsky 14 days to show cause, if he has any, why he should not be subj ect to public censure, fines, and other penalties.

W e strike appellants’ brief for failure to comply with the national and circuit rules

and sanction both appellants with summary a ffirmance of the judgment. We also direct Gorokhovsky to show cause why he should not be further penalized.