11-175-cv(L) Ransmeier v. UAL Corporation, et al.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT _____________________
August Term, 2011
(Argued: May 23, 2012 Decided: May 15, 2013)
Docket Nos. 11-175-cv & 11-640-cv _____________________
JOHN C. RANSMEIER, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LOUIS NEIL MARIANI, DECEASED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
and
COLGAN AIR INC., A VIRGINIA CORPORATION, US AIRWAYS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, L 3 COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION SECURITY AND DETECTION SYSTEMS, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, L 3 COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, L 3 COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, INVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STATE OF INCORPORATION UNKNOWN, QUANTUM MAGNETICS, INC., STATE OF INCORPORATION UNKNOWN, HEIMANN SYSTEMS CORP., STATE OF INCORPORATION UNKNOWN, AIR FRANCE, A FRENCH CORPORATION, DELTA AIRLINES, A CORPORATION, SWISS, A SWISS CORPORATION, AIR JAMAICA, A JAMAICAN CORPORATION, CAPE AIR, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, A TRADE ORGANIZATION,
Defendants,
UAL CORPORATION, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, UNITED AIRLINES, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, HUNTLEIGH USA CORPORATION, A MISSOURI CORPORATION, ICTS INTERNATIONAL NV, A NETHERLANDS BUSINESS ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM, GLOBAL AVIATION SERVICES, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, BURNS INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SERVICES CORP., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, SECURITAS AB, A SWEDISH BUSINESS ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM, MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, THE BOEING COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, MIDWEST EXPRESS AIRLINES, INC., A WISCONSIN CORPORATION, CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., A CORPORATION, DOES, 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, MIDWEST AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
-v.-
ELLEN MARIANI, Proposed Intervenor, Appellant. _______________________ Before: HALL, CARNEY, Circuit Judges.1 _______________________
After an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J.), this court AFFIRMED the district court's judgment denying Appellant's motion to intervene, and ordered the Appellant and her attorney to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for their conduct on appeal. We conclude that Appellant and her attorney's conduct in prosecuting this appeal was frivolous and offensive, and therefore warrants the imposition of sanctions. _______________________
Bruce Leichty, Clovis, California, for Appellant.
Peter G. Beeson, Devine Millimet & Branch, Professional Association, Concord, New Hampshire, and Charles R. Capace, Zimble & Brettler, Boston, Massachusetts, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jeffrey J. Ellis, Quirk and Bakalor, P.C., New York, New York, and Michael R. Feagley, Mayer Brown, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Defendants-Appellees. _______________________
HALL AND CARNEY, Circuit Judges:
On June 26, 2012, this panel issued a summary order (1) affirming the judgment of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J.) denying
Appellant's renewed motion to intervene, and (2) ordering Appellant and her attorney to show
cause why they should not be sanctioned for their conduct before this Court. See Ransmeier v.
Mariani, 486 F. App'x 890, 893-94 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order). We have now reviewed
their submissions, as well as the totality of their behavior in this case, in particular with respect
to their Motion to Supplement the Record (the "Motion"). For the reasons set forth below, we
Hon. Barrington D. Parker, Jr., originally assigned to this panel, recused himself from consideration of this appeal. Pursuant to Internal Operating Procedure E(b), formerly § 0.14(b) of