McCaffrey v. Gatekeeper USA, Inc
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:14-cv-00493-VSB
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In McCaffrey v. Gatekeeper USA, Judge Broderick denied the individual defendants’ request for an order of protection and warned the parties about future misconduct.
The ruling directly affected A. John Leontakianakos and John Seetoo, whose request for an order of protection was denied, and Timothy Andrew McCaffrey, against whom the requested order would have applied. The court’s directions concerning civil conduct and email communications applied to all parties.
What happened
In McCaffrey v. Gatekeeper USA, the two individual defendants asked the court for an order of protection in response to threatening emails that Timothy Andrew McCaffrey allegedly sent on April 11, 2023. The opinion identifies McCaffrey and the individual defendants as representing themselves without lawyers.
The court said the request did not explain why the federal court had authority to issue an order of protection. The court also said it was unclear whether federal courts have that authority.
Judge Broderick denied the request. He directed the parties to act civilly and warned that future misconduct could lead to penalties. He also reminded the parties that they generally may not email the judge’s chambers without advance permission and, when email submission is necessary, must copy all parties.
The detailed version
- McCaffrey v. Gatekeeper USA, Inc · No. 1:14-cv-00493-VSB
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
Timothy Andrew McCaffrey sued Gatekeeper USA, Inc., Asgard International, Inc., Ares Ventures Inc, A. John Leontakianakos, and John Seetoo. The order concerns a letter and email images submitted by Leontakianakos and Seetoo, who asked the court to issue an order of protection against McCaffrey. They based the request on emails McCaffrey allegedly sent to defendants on April 11, 2023. The letter and images were filed under seal.
The opinion lists McCaffrey, Leontakianakos, and Seetoo as representing themselves without lawyers.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the request did not explain why the federal court had authority to issue an order of protection. Citing other federal court decisions, the court stated that it was unclear whether federal courts have that authority. The court therefore denied the individual defendants’ request.
Additional directions
The court directed the parties to act civilly and warned that future misconduct may result in sanctions, meaning penalties imposed by the court. The court also reminded the parties of its procedures: parties and lawyers may not email chambers without prior permission. If an email submission is necessary, the sender must copy all parties to the case.
Disposition
The court denied the Individual Defendants’ request for an order of protection. It also issued directions and a warning concerning future conduct and communications with chambers.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.