Opinion ID: 1038177
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: two prior appeals

Text: Beginning in 2009, Dandar represented the estate of Kyle Brennan and filed this wrongful death suit in federal district court against Scientology and others 2 Case: 12-16513 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 Page: 3 of 5 (hereinafter referred to as the federal Brennan case). However, prior to this federal Brennan case, Dandar had entered into a settlement agreement in an earlier, unrelated wrongful death suit in Florida state court, in which Dandar agreed to no longer represent parties suing Scientology. Accordingly, Dandar’s representation of the Brennan estate appeared to violate that settlement agreement. After the state court held Dandar in contempt for violating the settlement agreement, Dandar unsuccessfully attempted to withdraw from representing the Brennan estate in this federal case, an attempt that resulted in the federal district court issuing an injunction against the state court contempt proceedings. In the first appeal, we reversed the district court’s order imposing the injunction against the state court proceedings, Estate of Brennan v. Church of Scientology Flag Serv. Org., 645 F.3d 1267, 1277 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Brennan I”), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1557 (2012), and Dandar was eventually permitted to withdraw nunc pro tunc from representing the Brennan estate in further proceedings in the federal Brennan case. The district court later granted summary judgment in favor of Scientology, and we affirmed in 2012. Estate of Brennan v. Church of Scientology Flag Serv. Org., Inc., 490 F. App’x 229, 230 (11th Cir. 2012). The Florida state court contempt proceedings against Dandar continued, however. As a result of orders entered in these state court proceedings, in 3 Case: 12-16513 Date Filed: 08/21/2013 Page: 4 of 5 December 2012 Dandar filed a motion in the now-closed federal Brennan case for a new injunction and for sanctions against Scientology, pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The district court denied Dandar’s motion, stating that (1) it did not retain any jurisdiction in the now-closed Brennan case, (2) no other basis for exercising jurisdiction existed, and (3) granting an injunction would also violate this Court’s Brennan I decision, which held that the district court could not enter precisely the injunction against the state court proceedings that Dandar sought. Dandar moved for reconsideration, which the district court denied. 1