united states court of appeals (xap)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCillT

15-3228 CV (CON) (XAP)

------------------------------------------------------------:x NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL,

Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, - v. -

-1-r A) J. . . N -U

l....l

- icg (

r'11 ·•

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, on its own behalf and Tom Brady ~ r

Defendant-Counter-claimant Related: 15-2Sol C~ (L) 15-2805 CV (Cons)

TOM BRADY, Counter-claimant

MICHELLE L. MCGillRK, Appellant

------------------------------------------------------------:x

MEMORANDUM OF LAW:

IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING and REHEARING EN BANC:

by APPELLANT1 - ~-.

Michelle L. McGuirk, CFA P.O. Box: 369 New York, NY 10113-0369 Ph: (646) 662-5241 [email protected]

1 ©Michelle L. McGuirk, 2016. All rights reserved.

....... I

,_o

I:'

--.. w f..)

,... . .; ...., .. 1 -_,

-l

~,

Case 15-2801, Document 258, 05/09/2016, 1769313, Page1 of 21

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................. .... .............................. ii

CASE CITATIONS ............................................................... ........ iii

STATUTES, RULES and LAWS ............ .......................................... . v

STATEMENT OF PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING .................. 1

STATEMENT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC. ............... l

QUESTIONS for PANEL REHEARING and REHEARING EN BANC..2

PROCEDURAL HISTORY .... ...................... . .................................. . 3

KEY FACTS TO HIGHLIGHT ............................. .......................... .. 5

PARTIES ..................... .. ............................ .................................. 6

STATUTES & LAWS PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY FOR RELIEF ..... 7

ARGUMENTS for REHEARING ...................... ............................... 7

A. SKILLFUL ERROR in SUMMARY ORDER AVOIDS MEDIATION. 7

B. BASIS TO DENY RELIEF LACKS FOUNDATIONAL SUPPORT .. 10

C. INEQUITABLE ARGUMENT TIME Violates CONSTITUTION .. ... 12

CONCLUSION ...................................... ..... .. ................. ........... .. 14

11


STATEMENT OF PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

1. This Petition follows a Summary Order dated April 25, 2016

affirming a Sept. 9, 2015 District Court Order denying my valid right to

intervene in National Football League Management Council v. National

Football League Players 7 Association (15-cv-5916) on common questions

of law and facts. Both this and related Opinion and Order reinstating

Tom Brady's arbitral award on reversal of judgment are effectively void.

2. Per Fed.R.App.Pr. 35(b)(l)(A), the panel decisions of Apr. 25,

2016 (Dkt#238,244) conflict with decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court,

thus, consideration by the full Court is necessary to secure uniformity.

3. Per Fed.R.App.Pr. 35(b)(l)(B), Apr. 25, 2016 panel decisions

are inconsistent with this Court's prior cases, deviating on issues of

arbitration, reasonable accommodation and Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 60. Thus,

consideration to rehear by a panel is necessary ensure valid precedent.

STATEMENT OF PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

4. Per Fed.R.App.Pr. 35(b)(l)(B), panel decisions of Feb. 26,

2016 in 15-3228(Dkt#l18) conflict with prudent decisions of this Court,

thus, consideration by a full Court is necessary to secure and maintain

uniformity here and its district courts and to guide other district courts.

1


5. Per Fed.R.App.Pr. 35(b)(l)(A) , panel decisions of Apr.25,

2016 in 15-3228 (Dkt#l 18) conflict with U.S. Supreme Court precedent,

offering full Court consideration to avoid Supremacy Clause violations.

6. Per Fed.R.App.Pr.35(b)(l)(B) exceptional circumstances exist

as my surviving many diagnosis of disease and qualifying to the 1984

U.S. National Gymnastics Team and Olympic Trials is likely highly

statistically remote over Mr. Brady's record yet not without due respect.

7. Exceptional circumstances exist to consider by the full Court

who, after reading submissions, may not concur with Opinion (Dkt#236)

that seemingly permits 'fraud on the court' as a healthy state of affairs.

8. A Petition for Rehearing En Banc is respectfully requested

and favored as one Justice appears conflicted and may be uninformed of

disability laws based on dismissal for jurisdiction issues in 15-2975.

9. I incorporate by reference Brief (Dkt#l20), Special Appendix

(Dkt#121), Reply Brief (Dkt#l 71), injunctive relief filings (Dkt#186),

motion to reconsider Orders en bane (Dkt#210) and open mot ions.

QUESTIONS for PANEL REHEARING and REHEARING EN BANC

10. Is Summary Order valid, reflecting full record and compliant

to rules? Is it a duty breach to flip-flop prose party to avoid mediation?

2


11. Did a panel's Apr. 25, 2016 Summary Order affirming denial

of my right to intervene misapply Fed.R.App.Pr. 60? If so, is the Court

passively permitting fraud to burden taxpayers/shareholders like me?

12. Are such Orders prejudiced by denying me argument time,

inadvertently spitting on prose rights per the U.S. Constitution? If so,

was decision made by panel or someone lacking knowledge or authority?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

13. I incorporate by reference pleadings in U.S. District Court

with letters in case 15-5916 and 15-5982 filed Aug. 1 7, 2015 on integrity

of Court procedures and Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 60 (JA14,JA22) and a pre-motion

letter to intervene on Aug. 25, 2015, with no opposition (JA10,JA18).

14. I incorporate 15-2801 filings: Statement of Case (Dkt#120),

Procedural Tactics ~11-28 (Dkt#l 71), Factual & Procedural Background

~1-23 (Dkt#186) and Motion to Reconsider Memo of Law ~3-11 (#210).

15. A Motion to Intervene, Affidavit and Memo of Law was filed

Sept. 8, 2015 (JA11)(MSA12) citing Supreme Court precedent and proof

of NFL's negative equity of three-quarters of a billion dollars, with this

Court notified per Fed.R.Civ.Pr.60 (Dkt#19,20). A Sept. 9, 2015 Order

3


(JA15)(Dkt#90)(MSA1 7) denied relief, with a Motion to Reconsider

submitted Sept. 28, 2015 to Pro Se Office not docketed (MSA1)(MSA29).

16. 15-2801 caption added me as party on entry of appeal (JA15)

(MSA19) and with notice given by Hon. Katzmann and Clerk (Dkt#55).

17. My Brief and Special Appendix (MSA) were entered only in

15-2801 (Dkt#120,121), while NFLMC's Brief, Special Appendix and

Reply (Dkt#9, 70) and NFLPA's Answering Brief (Dkt#63) are entered.

18. Proof of service on Member Clubs ~17 items was not entered.

19. My Reply Brief noted Fed.R.Civ.Pr.60 gives good cause for

prospective injunctive relief from Commissioner acts (15-2801;#171),

with motion for declaratory and injunctive relief unopposed (Dkt#166).

20. On Dec. 4, 2015, I moved to incorporate 15-2801 Appendices

(Dkt#60). Pending motions seek relief to: i) strike pro hac vice motion

(#153); ii) deny oral argument (Dkt#152); iii) deny leave to file amicus

brief and remove party (Dkt#156); iv) file within time (Dkt#163); v)

strike Bancroft appearance (Dkt#151); vi) seek third party injunctive

relief (Dkt#164) and vii) strike Gibson Dunn appearance (Dkt#154,179).

21. The Clerk's Office failed to give equal notice of argument by

mail. Staff had no knowledge of decision maker, basis or date (Dk#185)

4


22. Efforts to comply with Fed.R.App.Pr. 35 to appear in Court

were futile despite i) expedited motion to reconsider (Dkt#210) Feb. 23,

2016 Orders denying argument time and accommodation (Dkt#92,93)

(Dkt#201,202); ii) Mar. 1, 2016 letter after parties' requests (Dkt#94,95)

(Dkt#203,205) and iii) Clerk's claim it was not possible to reserve a seat.

23. Mar. 3, 2016 argument was held only in 15-2801. I witnessed

and was subject to inexplicable, disappointing procedural improprieties.

24. I did not answer unsolicited mail from New York Law School

(Dkt227)(unopened) or letter from Bancroft PLLC in reply (Dkt#229).

25. Apr. 25, 2016 Summary Order in 15-3228(Con) affirms Hons.

Katzmann, Parker and Chin decided I cannot intervene (Dkt#l 18).

26. Apr. 25, 2016's Opinion (Dkt#236) reverses a Sept. 3, 2016

district court Order in "15-5916, 15-1982", vacating an arbitral award

and directing a Clerk of Court to amend caption, removing my name.

27. April 25, 2016 Opinion dissent (Dkt#237) by the Chief Judge

affirms a Sept. 3, 2016 arbitral award and states no change to caption.

KEY FACTS TO HIGHLIGHT

28. The C&B of Feb. 1, 1970 (rev. 2006), Article VIII, §8.2 states:

"[t]he Commissioner shall have no financial interest, direct or indirect,

5


in any professional sport" (JA357). Since Aug. 8, 2006, Roger Goodell

claims to be Commissioner of a 503(c) trade association for professional

football, with total compensation over one-hundred fifty million dollars.

29. The NFLMC, as first-to-file in district court to affirm Mr.

Brady's arbitration award, failed-to-file the entirety of the Aug. 4, 2011

CBA or NFL Constitution and Bylaws allegedly signed in 2011 ("C&B").

30. Mr. Brady's arbitration award suspended his play and pay

for the first four games of 2015's regular season only (JA329-JA330).

31. I incorporate by reference my Briefs Statement of Facts (15-

280l;Dkt#120) and Reply Briefs Statement of Case Undisputed by

Parties (Dkt#l 71). Support for controversies is found in MSAl,20,23-38.

PARTIES

32. I incorporate by reference parties so named in Brief if8-17

(15-2801;#120) and Memo of Law for injunctive relief if 24-27 (Dkt#186).

33. Theodore Olson filed notice to appear Apr. 29, 2016 for NFL

Players Association, on behalf of it and Mr. Brady in 15-2801 (Dkt#24 7).

34. Mr. Olson was added as Tom Brady counsel in 15-2801 (Dkt

#249) within twenty-three minutes of if36 and NFLPA in 15-2801 and

15-2805 two minutes later (Dkt#248), despite no Certificate of Service.

6


STATUTES & LAWS PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY FOR RELIEF

35. Relief from alleged fraud-on-the-court is available per Fed.R.

Civ.Pr.60(b)(3) for misrepresentation and for a final judgment, order or

proceeding; 60(b)(4) for a void judgment and 60(b)(6) for other basis,

with powers not limited to grant relief per 60(d) for independent action.

36. The U.S. Constitution, Sess.I, Ch.20,§35 states prose rights

"in all courts" are where "the parties may plead and manage their own

causes personally" ahead of "attorneys-at-law" who "shall be permitted'~

37. Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et. seq.

38. Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement

Act imposes penalties per day if continuing [Title IX §951(b)(l),(b)(2)].

39. Summary Orders per Local Rule 32.1.1 and IOP 32.1.1 infer

no jurisprudential basis to issue opinions yet citing require accuracy.

ARGUMENTS for REHEARING

A. SKILLFUL ERROR IN SUMMARY ORDER AVOIDS MEDIATION

40. The Summary Order1 is void as it: i) fails to specify if Order

affirmed is Sept. 9 (MSAl 7) or Sept. 3, 2015 (MSA18)(P2,L9, 14); ii) uses

I "Summary Order", No. 15·3228 (Con): National Football League Management Council, et.al. v. National Football League Players' Association, et.a/, [CMIECF database : Second Circuit NextGen], Docket 118. No precedential effect. IOP 32.1.1.

7


incorrect name (P2,L2, 13); iii) falsely states it applies to No. 15-3228

(Con) rather than 15-3228 (XAP) assigned by Court (Pl,Ll 7); iv) omits

party names for 15-2805 (P2,Ll 1); v) fails to identify the motion denied

(P2,L12); vi) fails to name parties with appeal resolved (P2,L12) and vii)

is not signed nor dated with authentic signature by Judges or the Clerk.

41. ~ 40 was allegedly decided at a stated term held in Court on

April 25, 2016 despite NAC hearings all day and argument before Hons.

Walker, Calabresi and Hall (Chief) per calendar. It is unknown if Hons.

Parker, Chin and Katzmann convened in-person or had minutes taken.

42. Judgment filed Apr. 25, 2015 in 15-2801 (Dkt#246) omits my

name from caption and 15-3228 as related case despite no dismissal and

no judicial Order to remove my name in 15-2801(L), 15-2805(Con) or 15-

3228(Con)[formerly XAP] . A majority Opinion in 15-2801's cover page

has an asterick directing the Clerk to amend wording for Counter

Claimant-Appellee Tom Brady. It is unknown who authorized removal

during valid review period as it does not comport to prior acts (Dkt#55).

43. A District Court within this Circuit verified in Bernard v.

Galen Group, Inc., 901 F.Supp. 778 (1995) its Mediation Program was

established in 1992 as part of the Court's Civil Justica Expense and

8


Delay Reduction Plan adopted in Dec. 1991 where members of the bar

serve pro bono as a service to the Court (Guide, Section V, i-fA(3)) and

are subject to confidentiality provisions per Guide, Section V, i15):

"Discussions at mediation should be confidential and not reported, recorded, placed in evidence, made known to the assigned judge, or construed for any purpose as an admission. No party should be bound by anything done or said at mediation conferences unless a settlement is reached." Id 779.

That case highlights this Court's emphasis on confidentiality as:

"[it] encourages counsel to discuss matters in an uninhibited fashion .. . if participants cannot rely on the confidential treatment of everything that transpires during these sessions then counsel of necessity will feel constrained to conduct themselves in a cautious, tight-lipped, non-committal manner more suitable to poker players in a high-stakes games than to adversaries attempting to arrive at a just resolution of a civil dispute".

Lake Utopia Paper Ltd. v. Connellv Containers. Inc. 608 F.2d

928,930 (2d Cir.1979) cert den., 444 U.S. 1076, 100 S.Ct. 1023 62 L.Ed.

758 (1980). Id 784. In case 15-2801 where I was named party, it appears

prose rights were flip-flopped to meet others' fancy, and to deny relief.

44. 15-2801 parties evaded review by a Civil Appeals Mediation

Program (CAMP) as this civil case had a pro se party. No preliminary

conference was held after NFLMC filed its Form C (Dkt#22). If I am

removed, parties are returned ab initio for Court referral to mediation,

with notice to Mr. Brady and Mr. Goodell if they wish to attend CAMP.

9


B. BASIS TO DENY RELIEF LACKS FOUNDATIONAL SUPPORT

45. The Summary Order and Judgment affirming denial of my

motion to intervene was entered simultaneously in 15-3228 (Dkt#l 18)

and 15-2801 (Dkt#238) yet after Opinions filed in 15-2801 (Dkt#236-7).

46. ~ 45 alleges due consideration for Order (P2,L8), inferring my

filings were read impartially by assigned Judges, which is unclear as

15-3228's docket omits filings I reported to a Case Manager. I object to

claim that I "failed to identify any adequate legal basis" to intervene as

i) false and contrary to majority Opinion, Ftn. 1 [p.5] stating I asserted

Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 60 and ii) inserts a materiality test not found in the Rule.

4 7. This Court apparently overlooked citations and statutes of

relevance that merit panel rehearing or, preferably, rehearing en bane.

My Brief had no less than ten (10) Supreme Court cases cited and seven

federal statutes. My Reply Brief contained no less than four (4) citations

to Supreme Court cases, five (5) citations to this Court and three

statutes. My Memo of Law for injunctive and declaratory relief cited no

less than eight (8) Supreme Court cases and five (5) of this Court. Such

cases include Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. , 486 U.S.

84 7 (1988)[Reply Brief,p.10,Dkt#l 71] and Clarett v. National Football

10


League, 369 F.3d 124 (2004) for this Court [Memo of Law,Dkt#186), all

of which I incorporate by reference herein for purpose of this Petition.

48. In Liljeberg, the highest court stated "[Fed.R.Civ.Pr.l

60(b)(6) ... grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a

final judgment "upon such terms as are just" provided that the motion

is made within a reasonable time and is not premised on one of the

grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(l) through (b)(5)", Id 864.

Courts have authority "adequate to enable them to vacate judgments

whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice", Klapprott v.

US. , 335 U.S. 601,614-15 (1949) , cautioning it should only be applied in

"extraordinary circumstances", Ackermann v. US. , 340 U.S. 193 (1950).

Id 865. NFL's looming financial crises gives compelling circumstances

for rehearing so its costs are not imposed on taxpayers like me.

49. In Ottawa Office Integration, Inc. v. FTF Business S vstems,

Inc., 132 F.Supp. 2d 215 (2001) , an action to confirm an arbitration

award per 9 U.S.C. §9 of the Federal Arbitration Act was initially

referred to the Southern District of New York court-annexed mediation

office. That case states the FAA, §10(a)(3) sets grounds for vacatur

"where the arbitrator [was] guilty of misconduct .. .in refusing to hear

11


evidence pertinent and material to the controversy", citing the Supreme

Court's view "[m]isconduct typically arises where there is proof of either

bad faith or gross error on the part of the arbitrator". Agarwal v.

Agarwal, 775 F.Supp.588,589 (SDNY 199l)(citing United Paperworkers

Int'l. v. Misco. Inc.,484 U.S. 29,40, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987).

Id 220. The NFPLA has cited Silverman v. Major League Baseball

Plaver Relations Comm.. Inc. 67 F.3d 1054, 1062 (2d Cir.1995) as

affecting all football players, as professional athletes need greater

protection for injunctive relief for their "short careers", Id 1062,. Here,

Mr. Brady was not served subpoena as required prior to appeal hearing.

50. This Court opined in National Broadcasting Co .. Inc. v. Bear

Stearns & Co. Inc. , 165 F.3d 184, 186 (1999), that "[f]ederal courts do

not superintend arbitration proceedings. Our review is restricted to

determining whether the procedure was fundamentally unfair". Id 220.

Thus, a valid, material question of valid Commissioner authority and

independence flows in all arbitral decisions per CBA (MSA23-MSA37).

C. INEQUITABLE ARGUMENT TIME VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

51 . I incorporate by reference motion to reconsider denied relief

for argument time and ADA reasonable accommodations (Dkt# 210) .

12


52. This Court reversed and remanded to district court on ADA

claims in Weixel v. The Board of Education of the Citv of New York, 287

F.3d 138 (2002) as "[the] amended complaint was replete with

allegations of retaliatory conduct ... [on] attempts to obtain reasonable

accommodation of [child's] disability", Id 149, stating "whether an

individual has a disability for purposes of the ADA and Section 504, we

applied the three-step approach taken by the Supreme Court in

Bragdon v. Abbott'~ 524 U.S. 624, 118 S.Ct. 2196, 141 L.Ed. 2d 540

(1998). This supports en bane review as Order (Dkt#202) denying my

motion for ADA accommodation prior to argument (Dkt#l 95) conflicts

with this Court's diligence citing Supreme Court precedent.

53. Permissive intervention per Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 24(b) states "[o]n

timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who ... has a

claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of

law or fact". In this case, I disclosed equity shares of Bank of America,

Inc., parent of NFL's lender (Brief,p.iii;Dkt#120) where a Commissioner

is vested with powers to assess Member Club. I have vested interest in

know-your-customer as equity shares are deeply subordinated. I rely on

13


dividends tied to share price impacted by loan performance for stadiums

which falls neatly under nearly reckless power of one (1) Commissioner.

CONCLUSION

54. Based on the foregoing, I respectfully seek panel rehearing

or en bane hearing to reverse the District Court Order denying me relief

for limited intervention. If denied, this Court effectively says no fraud

has percolated in docket filings and ADA and pro se rights are moot.

55. If denied, the Court should thoughtfully consider referral of

all parties, Mr. Goodell and Mr. Brady, to mediation at Court CAMP.

My services are available as independent overseer if the Court desires.

Dated: ht~Wd' 9. :J.OI~, Ml)

Mic elle Mc . irk, Appellant, Pro Se P.O. Box 369,New York,NY 10113-369

14


Case 15-3228, Document 118-1, 04/25/2016, 1757321, Pagel of 2

15-3228 (Con) Nat ' l Football Le a gue Mgmt . Council v. Na t ' l Football League Player s Ass ' n

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HA VE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CIT A TIONTO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY TIDS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH TIDS COURT, AP ARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). AP ARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 2 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City ofNew York, on the 25th 3 day of April, two thousand sixteen.

4 PRESENT: 5 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 6 Chief Judge , 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 Circuit Judges.

10

11 National Football League Management Council, 12 Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant,

13 and

14 National Football League, 15 Defendant-Appellant,

16 17 18 19 20 21

22

23 24

-v.-

National Football League Players Association, on its own behalf and on behalf of Tom Brady,

Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee,

and

Tom Brady, Counter-Claimant-Appellee,

No. 15-3228 (Con) SUMMARY ORDER


Case 15-3228, Document 118-1, 04/25/2016, 1757321, Page2 of 2

1 and

2 Michelle McGuirk, 3 Appellant. 4

5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15 16

17

FOR APPELLANT: Michelle L. McGuirk, prose, New York, N.Y.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the district court's order is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Michelle McGuirk moved in the district court to intervene in National Football

League Management Council, et al. v. National Football League Players Association, et al., Nos.

15-2801, 15-2805. The motion was denied. The parties' appeal to this Court was resolved in an

opinion filed simultaneously with this summary order. Because McGuirk has failed to identify any

adequate legal basis for her intervention, the district court's order is affirmed.

For the Court: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

-2-


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ---------------------------------------------------------------------:x: CHELSEA NEW YORK REALTY COMPANY, L.L.C. Docket No.: 15-2975 cv

Appellee·Counterdefendant

J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT for COMMINGLED PENSION TRUST FUND (STRATEGIC PROPERTY), JEFFREY L. GOLDMAN, Esq, ROSE ASSOCIATES, INC., BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT CO. and ANDREW DiSCHINO

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL

Appellees·Counterdefendants - v -

MICHELLE MCGUIRK, '= Appellant·CounterClaimant ,.,

----------------------------------------------------------------------:x: ·:JG OC '?'.>

-< ~ "

STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK: '-;-, --;G rn-n '

0

::;o 0

I, Michelle McGuirk, Appellant, being duly sworn, depose and state ll'n ~er penalty ""Cl { c:...:i rnr . .

of perjury on May 6. 2016 a copy of: Memorandum of Law in Support of ! etitio;; for

Rehearing En Banc; and Feb. 26 and Apr. 22, 2016 Orders were served by priority

mail in postage-paid envelope under exclusive custody of the U.S. Postal Service to:

Chelsea New York Realty Company, L.L.C. c/o C.T. Corporation Systems 111 Eighth Avenue New York, New York 10011

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. c/o The Corporation Trust Company 1209 Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801

J.P. Morgan Investment Management for Commingled Pension Trust Fund (Strategic Property) c/o C.T. Corporation System 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10011

Sworn to before me this l ~ day of MA'Y , 2016.

~s~~ Notary Public

BenJaii.. ,, ""uerg Notary Public, State of New York

No. 02ST6042665 Qualified in Bronx County

Commission Expires ~~0v 30, 20-fb

Bozzuto Management Company c/oGeneral Counsel (PrincipalAgent) 7850 Walker Drive, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770

Andrew DiSchino c/o The Capitol at Chelsea 55 West 26th Street, Office llF New York, N.Y. 10010

Rose Associates, Inc. and Jeffrey L. Goldman, Esq. c/o Belkin Burden Wenig &Goldman 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016

DATED: 1n,OJ~ , 10 I '~016

By: ~ttnllkMW Michene~ ppellant, Pro Se P.O. Bo:x: 369, New York,NY 10113-0369


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Docket #:15-3228 cv (CON) (XAP)

--------------------------------------------------------------------·x: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL,

Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant· Appellee, - v. -NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, on its own behalf and Tom Brady

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

Defendant· Counter-claimant Related: 15-2801 CV (L) 15-2805 cv (Cons)

TOM BRADY, Counter· claimant

MICHELLE L. MCGUIRK, Appellant ----------------------------------------------------------------------x:

STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK ss:

I, Michelle L. McGuirk, Appellant, of full age, declare under penalty of perjury on

May 10, 2016, a copy of. i) Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc as

Memo of Law and ii) Summary Order dated Apr. 25, 2016 affirming a District Court

Order denying a motion to intervene, was served by priority mail in postage paid

envelope in official depository and exclusive custody of the U.S. Postal Service to:

Daniel L. Nash · Attorneys for NFLMC c/o Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Andrew S. Tulumello -Atty. for Tom Brady c/o Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-5303 Paul D. Clement - Attorneys for NFLMC c/o Bancroft PLLC 500 New Jersey Avenue NW, Suite 700 Washington DC 20001

Sworn to before me this I 'O ~day of !V\ Ai ! 2016.

~s~~ Notary Public

Benjamin Steinberg Notary Public, State of New York

No. 02ST6042665 Qualified in Bronx County

Commission Expires May 30, 20 _12,

Jeffrey L. Kessler -Attorneys for NFLPA c/o Winston & Strawn, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, N.Y. 10166 Gregg H. Levy - Attys. for Roger Goodell c/o Covington & Burling, LLP One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001-4956 Theodore B. Olson -Attorney for NFLPA c/o Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-5303

Dated: 'tyJ ~ ID,. . , 2016

111 ltWfuJ-1D~N


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ---------------------------------------------------------------------:x CHELSEA NEW YORK REALTY COMPANY, L.L.C. Docket No.: 15-2975 cv

Appellee-Counterdefendant

J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT for COMMINGLED PENSION TRUST FUND (STRATEGIC PROPERTY), JEFFREY L. GOLDMAN, Esq, ROSE ASSOCIATES, INC., BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT CO. and ANDREW DiSCHINO

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL

Appellees-Counterdefendants - v -

MICHELLE MCGUIRK, Appellant-CounterClaimant

----------------------------------------------------------------------:x . .

STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK: -'~ o..,

I, Michelle McGuirk, Appellant, being duly sworn, deposes and states 'tlid.er p ri.alty ---n -n :::0 :P - ::..

of perjury that on May 6, 2016 a copy of: i) Form T-1080; ii) Motiorl"-lbr Stay of f11 1' .. 7 ~

Mandate; iii) Apr. 29, 2016 Order; and iv) Affidavit were served by prioi'dty ma'li by

placing in postage-paid envelope under exclusive custody of U.S. Postal Service to:

Chelsea New York Realty Company, L.L.C. c/o C.T. Corporation Systems 111 Eighth Avenue New York, New York 10011

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. c/o The Corporation Trust Company 1209 Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801

J .P . Morgan Investment Management for Commingled Pension Trust Fund (Strategic Property) c/o C.T. Corporation System 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10011

Sworn to before me this I d'<"'I. day of N'\Aj , 2016.

~s~~ Notary Public

oenjamin Steinberg Notary Public, State of New York

No.02ST6042665 Qualified in Bronx County

Commission Expires May 30, 20J.1,

Bozzuto Management Company c/oGeneral Counsel (PrincipalAgent) 7850 Walker Drive, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770

Andrew DiSchino c/o The Capitol at Chelsea 55 West 26th Street, Office llF New York, N.Y. 10010

Rose Associates, Inc. and Jeffrey L. Goldman, Esq. c/o Belkin Burden Wenig &Goldman 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016

DATED= . 'rn,~ ro I '2016

By:__.J...j..l.~~~.+-L.!.ld~~!:D..l.-Michelle McGuir Appellant, Pro Se P.O. Bo:x 369, New York,NY 10113-0369


united states court of appeals (xap)

Documents