In re Wendy A. Nora

Summarized by Mazyar Hedayat , M. Hedayat & Associates, PC
11 years 2 weeks ago

Citation:

No. 13-2676

Tag(s):

Ruling:

Rule 38 of the Federal Appellate Procedure- When a litigant or attorney presents appellate arguments with no reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of delay, harassment or sheer obstinacy, sanctions are appropriate. Nora has given the court no reason to doubt her arguments are only designed to delay the foreclosure process; Nora has used these tactics of unsupported allegations of fraudulent mortgage documents, on numerous occasions in several separate and distinct cases Additionally, regarding Nora’s outbursts directed at opposing counsel, the Judge and other Judicial Officers, Nora also has failed to alleviate the courts concern about her engaging in conduct unbecoming a member of the court’s bar (Rule 38 of the Federal Appellate Procedure). Nora stated her comments during the litigation have amounted to nothing more than unsanctionable rudeness. However the Court disagreed stating Nora’s repeated accusations of criminal conduct on behalf of opposing counsel, the judge and the court reports, without basis in law or fact is unacceptable. The Court Imposed sanction of $2,500. The Court imposed sanction are to be suspended until Nora submits additional frivolous or needlessly antagonistic filings. This holding was to be forwarded to the Office of Lawyer Regulation of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, where there is a pending disciplinary case against Nora.

Procedural context:

This matter stems from an appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

Facts:

Nora has been using several delay tactics in order to prolong a client’s foreclosure. Four years in to a foreclosure, Attorney Nora, based on recently uncovered research, removed the case to federal court stating that Freddy Mac was the true party of interest. The district court judge rejected this course of action and remanded to state court, awarded PNC attorney’s fees and cost. Nora moved to reconsider, the Court again denied Nora calling it, “frivolous and [Nora] made no good faith argument for changing existing law and offered no meritorious arguments for reconsidering the decision to award fees.” Further [Nora] “has repeatedly used procedural feints to delay the foreclosure that was properly before the state court” The court cited that Nora has previously been suspended from the practice of law in Minnesota due to similar delay tactics. Back in state court, Nora repeatedly accused, the state court judge and the court reporter of fraudulently manipulating transcripts, the district judge of pursuing a campaign of libel against her, and opposing counsel of engaging in actionable civil fraud and racketeering that may constitute state and federal criminal misconduct. Nora continually acted in an antagonistic matter to opposing counsel and other judicial officers. In Court, Nora repeatedly made reference to thoroughly rejected arguments from prior motions, and opinions stating if given an evidentiary hearing she will be vindicated.

Judge(s):

Bauer, Posner and Tinder

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!