DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AWARE WOMAN CENTER
FOR CHOICE, INC., a Florida corporation,
EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., and
PATRICIA B. WINDLE
Defendants.

CASE NO.: 97-1197-CV-ORL-19B

Defendants AWCC et al. respectfully submit this memorandum of Law in opposition to the "'Motion [of Plaintiff] for Certification of interlocutory Appeal."

NO BRIEF FILED

Plaintiff Raney filed no brief or memorandum with his "Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal." This omission causes confusion and violates Local Rule 3.01(a). The motion also falls to clarify "what" is being appealed "where" pursuant to which federal rules and or statutes. There is also no indication whether the appeal is to the District Judge or the U.S. Court of Appeals.

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH FRAP 5

Assuming that plaintiff Raney means to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which is not clear at all, there is neither reference to nor compliance with FRAP 5 or 5.1. The statement prescribed by 28 USC §1292(b) has not been requested, and is not applicable- An interstitial discovery question on financial matters hardly presents a controlling question.

Putting to one side earlier grounds for denying the motion, the reasons stated are insufficient. Plaintiff Raney is a very long way from ever pleading for punitive damages, or any relief at all. The pending defense motion for summary judgement, must be decided first, and any appeal therefrom. Raney has not proffered a scintilla of bad faith evidence opposing the summary judgment. There is none. It is Raney, not AWCC, who has exposure for substantial and punitive damages, as seen by his Operation Rescue mentor in Dallas, TX, who recently suffered an $8.4 million adverse verdict for clinic harassment. Tompkins v. Cyr, 1998 WL 21650 (N.D. Tex.)(Kaplan, J).

Lastly, defense counsel are still not being conferred with as required under Local Rule 3.01(g). Papers are not being served upon counsel England and Lucas although plaintiff's counsel is aware that we are responsible for the matter now.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Roy Lucas <signed>
DC Bar #153957
c/o PO Box 1433
Melbourne, FL 32902-1433
(407) 339-4600

Susan A. England <signed>
Fla Bar #0186081
2805 Lakeview Drive
Fern Park, FL 32730-2007
(407) 339-4600

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-COUNTERCI.AIMANTS, AWCC, et al.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: This "Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal" has been served this 30th day of June, 1998, by First Class mail sent to Christopher Sapp, Esq., PO Box 1012, Lehigh Acres, FL 33970, along with the Amended Special Appearance to Practice.

By: Roy Lucas <signed>