Matthew Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine - Revision history

Maestro grandeur: adding more about decision

2023-08-30T18:36:42Z

adding more about decision

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:36, 30 August 2023
Line 29:		Line 29:
	}}		}}

	Lead counsel for The Satanic Temple [[Matthew Kezhaya]] ~~is appealing~~ case sanctions in the amount of $16,943.40 from 0:21-cv-00336-WMW ("[[Satanic_Temple,_The_v._Belle_Plaine,_City_of\|Satanic Temple I]]").		Lead counsel for The Satanic Temple [[Matthew Kezhaya]] appealed case sanctions in the amount of $16,943.40 from 0:21-cv-00336-WMW ("[[Satanic_Temple,_The_v._Belle_Plaine,_City_of\|Satanic Temple I]]").

	~~=Appellate Court Case Summary<ref>[https://www~~.~~courtlistener.com/docket/66806046/804826251/1/matthew-kezhaya-v-city-of-belle-plaine/ CourtListener.com]~~, ~~Counsel Opinion Letter — Document #804826251~~, ~~Attachment #1 Court of Appeals for~~ the Eighth Circuit~~</ref>=~~		On Aug. 25, 2023, the Eighth Circuit upheld the sanctions against Kezhaya.
	Kezhaya represented The Satanic Temple, Inc., in its lawsuits against the City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota. The Temple sued the City on April 25, 2019, claiming that the City opened a limited public forum for a Christian monument, but closed the forum to exclude a Satanic monument. The Temple alleged violations of state and federal constitutions, as well as breach of contract and promissory estoppel.

	~~Both parties moved~~ for ~~judgment on~~ the ~~pleadings~~. ~~On July 31~~, ~~2020~~, the ~~district court granted~~ the ~~City’s motion in part and dismissed nine of~~ the ~~Temple’s ten counts “without prejudice” for failure~~ to ~~state~~ a ~~claim~~. The ~~court permitted the Temple’s~~ promissory estoppel ~~claim to proceed~~.		==Appellate Court Case Summary<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66806046/804826251/1/matthew-kezhaya-v-city-of-belle-plaine/ CourtListener.com], Counsel Opinion Letter — Document #804826251, Attachment #1 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit</ref>==
			:Kezhaya represented The Satanic Temple, Inc., in its lawsuits against the City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota. The Temple sued the City on April 25, 2019, claiming that the City opened a limited public forum for a Christian monument, but closed the forum to exclude a Satanic monument. The Temple alleged violations of state and federal constitutions, as well as breach of contract and promissory estoppel.

	On ~~December 1~~, 2020, ~~after~~ the district ~~court’s deadline to amend pleadings,~~ the ~~Temple moved~~ for ~~leave~~ to ~~amend its complaint~~. The Temple’s ~~proposed amendment sought~~ to reassert its previously dismissed constitutional claims based on the Free Exercise Clause, Free Speech Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Temple also sought to add new counts alleging violations of the Establishment Clause and the Due Process Clause.		:Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings. On July 31, 2020, the district court granted the City’s motion in part and dismissed nine of the Temple’s ten counts “without prejudice” for failure to state a claim. The court permitted the Temple’s promissory estoppel claim to proceed.

	On ~~January 26~~, ~~2021~~, ~~a magistrate judge denied~~ the ~~Temple’s motion for leave~~ to amend, ~~concluding that (i)~~ the Temple ~~had failed to show “good cause”~~ to amend ~~after the deadline, (ii) the~~ Temple’s proposed ~~amendments were futile~~ on the ~~reasserted constitutional claims~~, and ~~(iii) it would be inappropriate to allow the~~ Temple to ~~assert the~~ new ~~constitutional claims at the late stage~~ of the ~~litigation. The magistrate judge also denied the Temple’s request to dismiss voluntarily its remaining promissory estoppel claim~~ and ~~to reassert its constitutional claims in a second lawsuit. The judge concluded that~~ the ~~City “would in fact be severely prejudiced if [the Temple] were permitted to reassert its claims anew in a second round of litigation~~.”		:On December 1, 2020, after the district court’s deadline to amend pleadings, the Temple moved for leave to amend its complaint. The Temple’s proposed amendment sought to reassert its previously dismissed constitutional claims based on the Free Exercise Clause, Free Speech Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Temple also sought to add new counts alleging violations of the Establishment Clause and the Due Process Clause.

	~~Before objecting~~ to ~~the magistrate judge’s order~~, the Temple ~~filed a second lawsuit in~~ the ~~district court~~ on ~~February 4, 2021. The second action~~ reasserted ~~the rejected~~ constitutional claims, and ~~added state constitutional claims based on provisions analogous~~ to the ~~federal Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause. The complaint acknowledged that its core factual allegations were~~ the ~~same as those underlying~~ the ~~Temple’s first lawsuit, and that a version~~ of the ~~complaint had been proposed and rejected as an amended complaint~~. The ~~City moved~~ to dismiss ~~the complaint as barred by res judicata~~ and ~~for failure~~ to ~~state~~ a ~~claim~~. The City ~~also moved for Rule 11 sanctions against Kezhaya~~.		:On January 26, 2021, a magistrate judge denied the Temple’s motion for leave to amend, concluding that (i) the Temple had failed to show “good cause” to amend after the deadline, (ii) the Temple’s proposed amendments were futile on the reasserted constitutional claims, and (iii) it would be inappropriate to allow the Temple to assert the new constitutional claims at the late stage of the litigation. The magistrate judge also denied the Temple’s request to dismiss voluntarily its remaining promissory estoppel claim and to reassert its constitutional claims in a second lawsuit. The judge concluded that the City “would in fact be severely prejudiced if [the Temple] were permitted to reassert its claims anew in a second round of litigation.”

	~~On February 5, 2021~~, the ~~City moved for summary judgment on the Temple’s remaining promissory estoppel claim~~ in the ~~first lawsuit. On~~ February 9, 2021, ~~the Temple objected~~ to the ~~magistrate judge’s order of January 26, 2021, regarding the motion for leave to amend~~. The ~~Temple argued~~ that ~~it was “legal error” for~~ the ~~magistrate judge to determine~~ that the amended complaint ~~was “futile,” but argued that~~ the ~~motion~~ for ~~leave~~ to ~~amend was now “moot” because the Temple had filed~~ a ~~second lawsuit~~.		:Before objecting to the magistrate judge’s order, the Temple filed a second lawsuit in the district court on February 4, 2021. The second action reasserted the rejected constitutional claims, and added state constitutional claims based on provisions analogous to the federal Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause. The complaint acknowledged that its core factual allegations were the same as those underlying the Temple’s first lawsuit, and that a version of the complaint had been proposed and rejected as an amended complaint. The City moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by res judicata and for failure to state a claim. The City also moved for Rule 11 sanctions against Kezhaya.

	On ~~September 15~~, 2021, the ~~district court issued a combined order addressing both lawsuits. In~~ the first lawsuit, the ~~court affirmed~~ the magistrate judge’s order of January 26, 2021. The ~~court ruled~~ that the ~~Temple failed~~ to ~~demonstrate “good cause” to amend its pleading after~~ the ~~deadline~~, ~~and~~ that the ~~Temple’s proposed amendments~~ to the ~~constitutional claims were futile. The court also granted summary judgment for the City on the Temple’s promissory estoppel claim~~.		:On February 5, 2021, the City moved for summary judgment on the Temple’s remaining promissory estoppel claim in the first lawsuit. On February 9, 2021, the Temple objected to the magistrate judge’s order of January 26, 2021, regarding the motion for leave to amend. The Temple argued that it was “legal error” for the magistrate judge to determine that the amended complaint was “futile,” but argued that the motion for leave to amend was now “moot” because the Temple had filed a second lawsuit.

	In the ~~second~~ lawsuit, the ~~district court granted the City’s motion to dismiss and its motion for sanctions. The~~ court ~~cited both~~ the ~~doctrine~~ of ~~res judicata and the related rule against duplicative litigation~~. The court ~~emphasized~~ that ~~rather than appeal~~ the ~~denial of the motion~~ to amend in the ~~first lawsuit~~, the ~~Temple filed a “second frivolous lawsuit” that wasted~~ the ~~resources of~~ the ~~parties and~~ the ~~court~~.		:On September 15, 2021, the district court issued a combined order addressing both lawsuits. In the first lawsuit, the court affirmed the magistrate judge’s order of January 26, 2021. The court ruled that the Temple failed to demonstrate “good cause” to amend its pleading after the deadline, and that the Temple’s proposed amendments to the constitutional claims were futile. The court also granted summary judgment for the City on the Temple’s promissory estoppel claim.

	~~The City sought $33~~,~~886.80 in attorney’s fees incurred by responding to~~ the ~~complaint in~~ the ~~second lawsuit~~ and ~~preparing the~~ motion for sanctions. The court ~~concluded that~~ the ~~Temple’s behavior, “including its repeated disregard~~ of ~~court orders, suggests that a mere reprimand from~~ the ~~Court would be insufficient to deter similar misconduct in the future~~.” The court ~~determined~~ that the ~~rates charged by the City’s counsel were reasonable, but observed that a portion~~ of the ~~work was duplicative of~~ the first lawsuit, ~~and~~ that the ~~issues unique to the second lawsuit were not complex, novel, or difficult. The court thus reduced~~ the ~~requested amount by fifty percent,~~ and ~~ordered~~ the ~~Temple’s counsel to pay the City $16,943.40 under Rule 11(c)~~.		:In the second lawsuit, the district court granted the City’s motion to dismiss and its motion for sanctions. The court cited both the doctrine of res judicata and the related rule against duplicative litigation. The court emphasized that rather than appeal the denial of the motion to amend in the first lawsuit, the Temple filed a “second frivolous lawsuit” that wasted the resources of the parties and the court.

	Kezhaya appeals the sanctions order. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by (i) imposing sanctions, (ii) failing to consider non-monetary sanctions, and (iii) granting an arbitrary amount of sanctions.		:The City sought $33,886.80 in attorney’s fees incurred by responding to the complaint in the second lawsuit and preparing the motion for sanctions. The court concluded that the Temple’s behavior, “including its repeated disregard of court orders, suggests that a mere reprimand from the Court would be insufficient to deter similar misconduct in the future.” The court determined that the rates charged by the City’s counsel were reasonable, but observed that a portion of the work was duplicative of the first lawsuit, and that the issues unique to the second lawsuit were not complex, novel, or difficult. The court thus reduced the requested amount by fifty percent, and ordered the Temple’s counsel to pay the City $16,943.40 under Rule 11(c).

			:Kezhaya appeals the sanctions order. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by (i) imposing sanctions, (ii) failing to consider non-monetary sanctions, and (iii) granting an arbitrary amount of sanctions.

			==Sanctions upheld==
			The Eighth Circuit opinion found that the test for duplicative litigation was satisfied because The Temple attempted to maintain two actions against the City based on the same facts. To the timeliness, the Court wrote, "Requiring the Temple to bring all claims in a timely manner does not constitute a denial of a full and fair opportunity to litigate them" and said that the proper recourse was to appeal the rulings to the district court or court of appeals rather than starting a new lawsuit.

			The Eighth Circuit also found no abuse of discretion in the court’s monetary penalty against Kezhaya.

	=Appeal Docket<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66806046/matthew-kezhaya-v-city-of-belle-plaine/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc CourtListener.com], Matthew Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine (22-2183), Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit</ref>=		=Appeal Docket<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66806046/matthew-kezhaya-v-city-of-belle-plaine/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc CourtListener.com], Matthew Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine (22-2183), Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit</ref>=

Maestro grandeur: adding appellate court case summary

2023-08-25T23:48:33Z

adding appellate court case summary

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:48, 25 August 2023
Line 23:		Line 23:
	\| result=[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59240138/satanic-temple-inc-the-v-city-of-belle-plaine-mn/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-58 Kezhaya sanctioned]		\| result=[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59240138/satanic-temple-inc-the-v-city-of-belle-plaine-mn/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-58 Kezhaya sanctioned]

	\| appeal1=~~Ongoing~~		\| appeal1=Affirmed (failure)
	\| appeal2=N/A		\| appeal2=N/A
	\| appeal3=N/A		\| appeal3=N/A
	\| finalresult=~~N/A~~		\| finalresult=Affirmed (failure)
	}}		}}

	Lead counsel for The Satanic Temple [[Matthew Kezhaya]] is appealing case sanctions in the amount of $16,943.40 from 0:21-cv-00336-WMW ("[[Satanic_Temple,_The_v._Belle_Plaine,_City_of\|Satanic Temple I]]").		Lead counsel for The Satanic Temple [[Matthew Kezhaya]] is appealing case sanctions in the amount of $16,943.40 from 0:21-cv-00336-WMW ("[[Satanic_Temple,_The_v._Belle_Plaine,_City_of\|Satanic Temple I]]").

	=Appeal Docket=		=Appellate Court Case Summary<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66806046/804826251/1/matthew-kezhaya-v-city-of-belle-plaine/ CourtListener.com], Counsel Opinion Letter — Document #804826251, Attachment #1 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit</ref>=
			Kezhaya represented The Satanic Temple, Inc., in its lawsuits against the City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota. The Temple sued the City on April 25, 2019, claiming that the City opened a limited public forum for a Christian monument, but closed the forum to exclude a Satanic monument. The Temple alleged violations of state and federal constitutions, as well as breach of contract and promissory estoppel.

			Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings. On July 31, 2020, the district court granted the City’s motion in part and dismissed nine of the Temple’s ten counts “without prejudice” for failure to state a claim. The court permitted the Temple’s promissory estoppel claim to proceed.

			On December 1, 2020, after the district court’s deadline to amend pleadings, the Temple moved for leave to amend its complaint. The Temple’s proposed amendment sought to reassert its previously dismissed constitutional claims based on the Free Exercise Clause, Free Speech Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Temple also sought to add new counts alleging violations of the Establishment Clause and the Due Process Clause.

			On January 26, 2021, a magistrate judge denied the Temple’s motion for leave to amend, concluding that (i) the Temple had failed to show “good cause” to amend after the deadline, (ii) the Temple’s proposed amendments were futile on the reasserted constitutional claims, and (iii) it would be inappropriate to allow the Temple to assert the new constitutional claims at the late stage of the litigation. The magistrate judge also denied the Temple’s request to dismiss voluntarily its remaining promissory estoppel claim and to reassert its constitutional claims in a second lawsuit. The judge concluded that the City “would in fact be severely prejudiced if [the Temple] were permitted to reassert its claims anew in a second round of litigation.”

			Before objecting to the magistrate judge’s order, the Temple filed a second lawsuit in the district court on February 4, 2021. The second action reasserted the rejected constitutional claims, and added state constitutional claims based on provisions analogous to the federal Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause. The complaint acknowledged that its core factual allegations were the same as those underlying the Temple’s first lawsuit, and that a version of the complaint had been proposed and rejected as an amended complaint. The City moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by res judicata and for failure to state a claim. The City also moved for Rule 11 sanctions against Kezhaya.

			On February 5, 2021, the City moved for summary judgment on the Temple’s remaining promissory estoppel claim in the first lawsuit. On February 9, 2021, the Temple objected to the magistrate judge’s order of January 26, 2021, regarding the motion for leave to amend. The Temple argued that it was “legal error” for the magistrate judge to determine that the amended complaint was “futile,” but argued that the motion for leave to amend was now “moot” because the Temple had filed a second lawsuit.

			On September 15, 2021, the district court issued a combined order addressing both lawsuits. In the first lawsuit, the court affirmed the magistrate judge’s order of January 26, 2021. The court ruled that the Temple failed to demonstrate “good cause” to amend its pleading after the deadline, and that the Temple’s proposed amendments to the constitutional claims were futile. The court also granted summary judgment for the City on the Temple’s promissory estoppel claim.

			In the second lawsuit, the district court granted the City’s motion to dismiss and its motion for sanctions. The court cited both the doctrine of res judicata and the related rule against duplicative litigation. The court emphasized that rather than appeal the denial of the motion to amend in the first lawsuit, the Temple filed a “second frivolous lawsuit” that wasted the resources of the parties and the court.

			The City sought $33,886.80 in attorney’s fees incurred by responding to the complaint in the second lawsuit and preparing the motion for sanctions. The court concluded that the Temple’s behavior, “including its repeated disregard of court orders, suggests that a mere reprimand from the Court would be insufficient to deter similar misconduct in the future.” The court determined that the rates charged by the City’s counsel were reasonable, but observed that a portion of the work was duplicative of the first lawsuit, and that the issues unique to the second lawsuit were not complex, novel, or difficult. The court thus reduced the requested amount by fifty percent, and ordered the Temple’s counsel to pay the City $16,943.40 under Rule 11(c).

			Kezhaya appeals the sanctions order. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by (i) imposing sanctions, (ii) failing to consider non-monetary sanctions, and (iii) granting an arbitrary amount of sanctions.

			=Appeal Docket<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66806046/matthew-kezhaya-v-city-of-belle-plaine/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc CourtListener.com], Matthew Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine (22-2183), Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit</ref>=
	{\| class="wikitable sortable collapsible"		{\| class="wikitable sortable collapsible"
	\|+Court of Appeals Docket #: 22-2183 \| Matthew Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine \| Appeal From: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota		\|+Court of Appeals Docket #: 22-2183 \| Matthew Kezhaya v. City of Belle Plaine \| Appeal From: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Maestro grandeur: updated link

2023-02-11T01:32:56Z

updated link

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:32, 11 February 2023
Line 19:		Line 19:
	\| state=Minnesota		\| state=Minnesota

	\| case=[https://www.~~pacermonitor~~.com/~~public~~/~~case~~/~~44813896~~/~~The_Satanic_Temple_v_City_of_Belle_Plaine~~ 0:22-cv-02183]		\| case=[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66806046/matthew-kezhaya-v-city-of-belle-plaine/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc 0:22-cv-02183]

	\| result=[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59240138/satanic-temple-inc-the-v-city-of-belle-plaine-mn/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-58 Kezhaya sanctioned]		\| result=[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59240138/satanic-temple-inc-the-v-city-of-belle-plaine-mn/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-58 Kezhaya sanctioned]

Maestro grandeur: added CourtListener links as latest updates

2023-02-11T01:26:29Z

added CourtListener links as latest updates

@@ Line 126: / Line 126: @@
 |-
 |  style="text-align:center;" | 11/14/2022
-|  style="text-align:center;" | [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppelleeBriefExtensionRequest_5217786.pdf|📄]]
+|  style="text-align:center;" | [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine AppelleeBriefExtensionRequest 5217786.pdf|📄]]
 |MOTION for extension of time to file brief until 01/04/2023, filed by Attorney Mr. Monte Mills for Appellee City of Belle Plaine w/service 11/14/2022. [5217786] [22-2183] (MM) [Entered: 11/14/2022 04:31 PM]
 |-
 |11/15/2022
-|  style="text-align:center;" | [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppelleeBriefExtensionGranted_5217875.pdf|📄]]
+|  style="text-align:center;" | [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine AppelleeBriefExtensionGranted 5217875.pdf|📄]]
 |CLERK ORDER:Granting [5217786-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Monte Mills. Brief of City of Belle Plaine due 01/04/2023. [5217875] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 11/15/2022 08:46 AM]
 |-
@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 |-
 |01/05/2023
-|  style="text-align:center;" | [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppelleeBrief_5232982.pdf|📄]]
+|  style="text-align:center;" | [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine AppelleeBrief 5232982.pdf|📄]]
 |'''BRIEF FILED''' - APPELLEE BRIEF filed by City of Belle Plaine,
 w/service 01/05/2023 , Length: 10,039 words
@@ Line 153: / Line 153: @@
 |RECORD FILED - APLEE/RES APPENDIX, 1 volumes, Comments: 3 copies of 1 volume
 [5234113] [22-2183] (NDG) [Entered: 01/09/2023 03:56 PM]
 |}

Maestro grandeur: /* Appeal Docket */

2023-01-11T02:17:09Z

Appeal Docket

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:17, 11 January 2023
Line 81:		Line 81:
	\|08/15/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine AppealDeadlineGranted 5187254.pdf\|📄]]\|\| CLERK ORDER:Granting [5187152-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. Brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due 09/26/2022. Appendix due on 09/26/2022. [5187254] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 08/15/2022 09:28 AM]		\|08/15/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine AppealDeadlineGranted 5187254.pdf\|📄]]\|\| CLERK ORDER:Granting [5187152-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. Brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due 09/26/2022. Appendix due on 09/26/2022. [5187254] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 08/15/2022 09:28 AM]
	\|-		\|-
	\|09/22/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppealDeadlineRequest_5201147~~.pdf\|📄]]\|\| \|MOTION for extension of time to file brief until 10/26/2022, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 09/22/2022. [5201147] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 09/22/2022 07:17 PM]		\|09/22/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine AppealDeadlineRequest 5201147.pdf\|📄]]\|\| \|MOTION for extension of time to file brief until 10/26/2022, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 09/22/2022. [5201147] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 09/22/2022 07:17 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\|09/23/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppealDeadlineGranted_5201367~~.pdf\|📄]] \|\|CLERK ORDER:Granting [5201147-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. Brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due 10/26/2022. Appendix due on 10/26/2022. No further extensions will be granted. [5201367] [22-2183] (AT) [Entered: 09/23/2022 12:33 PM]		\|09/23/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine AppealDeadlineGranted 5201367.pdf\|📄]]\|\|CLERK ORDER:Granting [5201147-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. Brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due 10/26/2022. Appendix due on 10/26/2022. No further extensions will be granted. [5201367] [22-2183] (AT) [Entered: 09/23/2022 12:33 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\| 10/26/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| 🔒 \|\|APPELLANT brief of Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya submitted for review. The time for filing the subsequent brief (if any) does not begin to run until the brief has been approved and filed. To open/view this brief, you must first login to CM/ECF and then open the document link in your Notice of Docket Activity. Only direct recipients on accounts can open this document. [5211983] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 10/26/2022 11:52 PM]		\| 10/26/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| 🔒 \|\|APPELLANT brief of Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya submitted for review. The time for filing the subsequent brief (if any) does not begin to run until the brief has been approved and filed. To open/view this brief, you must first login to CM/ECF and then open the document link in your Notice of Docket Activity. Only direct recipients on accounts can open this document. [5211983] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 10/26/2022 11:52 PM]
Line 90:		Line 90:
	\|-		\|-
	\| 10/27/2022		\| 10/27/2022
	\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine BriefDeficiency 5212079.pdf\|📄]]		\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine BriefDeficiency 5212079.pdf\|📄]]
	\| Brief deficiency notice sent to counsel, Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. [5212079] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 10/27/2022 09:19 AM]		\| Brief deficiency notice sent to counsel, Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. [5212079] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 10/27/2022 09:19 AM]
	\|-		\|-
	\| 10/27/2022		\| 10/27/2022
	\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_BriefAddendum_5212084~~.pdf\|📄]]		\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine BriefAddendum 5212084.pdf\|📄]]
	\| ADDENDUM of APPELLANT FILED by Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya , w/service 10/27/2022 [5212084] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 10/27/2022 09:25 AM]		\| ADDENDUM of APPELLANT FILED by Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya , w/service 10/27/2022 [5212084] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 10/27/2022 09:25 AM]
	\|-		\|-
Line 102:		Line 102:
	\|-		\|-
	\|11/03/2022		\|11/03/2022
	\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_BriefDeficiencySecond_5214427~~.pdf\|📄]]		\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine BriefDeficiencySecond 5214427.pdf\|📄]]
	\|Brief deficiency notice sent to counsel, Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. [5214427] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 11/03/2022 09:31 AM]		\|Brief deficiency notice sent to counsel, Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. [5214427] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 11/03/2022 09:31 AM]
	\|-		\|-
Line 110:		Line 110:
	\|-		\|-
	\|11/03/2022		\|11/03/2022
	\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_OpeningBrief_5214716~~.pdf\|📄]]		\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine OpeningBrief 5214716.pdf\|📄]]
	\|BRIEF FILED - APPELLANT BRIEF filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. w/service 11/03/2022 , Length: 7,732 words		\|'''BRIEF FILED''' - APPELLANT BRIEF filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. w/service 11/03/2022 , Length: 7,732 words
	10 COPIES OF PAPER BRIEFS (WITHOUT THE APPELLATE PDF FOOTER) FROM Matthew A. Kezhaya due 11/08/2022 WITH certificate of service for paper briefs.		'''10 COPIES OF PAPER BRIEFS (WITHOUT THE APPELLATE PDF FOOTER) FROM Matthew A. Kezhaya due 11/08/2022 WITH certificate of service for paper briefs.
	Brief of City of Belle Plaine due on 12/05/2022 [5214716] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 11/03/2022 04:30 PM]		Brief of City of Belle Plaine due on 12/05/2022''' [5214716] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 11/03/2022 04:30 PM]
			\|-
			\|11/04/2022
			\| style="text-align:center;" \| N/A
			\|Paper copies Appellant/Petitioner Brief, [5214716-2] filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya 10 paper copies received. w/Addendum attached
			[5215404] [22-2183] (NDG) [Entered: 11/07/2022 11:32 AM]
			\|-
			\|11/07/2022
			\| style="text-align:center;" \| N/A
			\|RECORD FILED - APLNT/PET APPENDIX, 2 volumes, Comments: 3 copies of 2 volumes
			[5215421] [22-2183] (NDG) [Entered: 11/07/2022 11:42 AM]
			\|-
			\| style="text-align:center;" \| 11/14/2022
			\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppelleeBriefExtensionRequest_5217786.pdf\|📄]]
			\|MOTION for extension of time to file brief until 01/04/2023, filed by Attorney Mr. Monte Mills for Appellee City of Belle Plaine w/service 11/14/2022. [5217786] [22-2183] (MM) [Entered: 11/14/2022 04:31 PM]
			\|-
			\|11/15/2022
			\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppelleeBriefExtensionGranted_5217875.pdf\|📄]]
			\|CLERK ORDER:Granting [5217786-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Monte Mills. Brief of City of Belle Plaine due 01/04/2023. [5217875] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 11/15/2022 08:46 AM]
			\|-
			\|01/04/2023
			\| style="text-align:center;" \| 🔒
			\|APPELLEE brief of City of Belle Plaine submitted for review. The time for filing the subsequent brief (if any) does not begin to run until the brief has been approved and filed. To open/view this brief, you must first login to CM/ECF and then open the document link in your Notice of Docket Activity. Only direct recipients on accounts can open this document. [5232818] [22-2183] (MM) [Entered: 01/04/2023 03:16 PM]
			\|-
			\|01/05/2023
			\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppelleeBrief_5232982.pdf\|📄]]
			\|'''BRIEF FILED''' - APPELLEE BRIEF filed by City of Belle Plaine,
			w/service 01/05/2023 , Length: 10,039 words

			'''10 COPIES OF PAPER BRIEFS (WITHOUT THE APPELLATE PDF FOOTER) FROM City of Belle Plaine due 01/10/2023 WITH certificate of service for paper briefs. Reply brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due on 01/26/2023.''' [5232982] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 01/05/2023 10:11 AM]
			\|-
			\|01/09/2023
			\| style="text-align:center;" \| N/A
			\|Paper copies Appellee/Respondent brief, [5232982-2] filed by City of Belle Plaine 10 paper copies received.
			[5234112] [22-2183] (NDG) [Entered: 01/09/2023 03:54 PM]
			\|-
			\|01/09/2023
			\| style="text-align:center;" \| N/A
			\|RECORD FILED - APLEE/RES APPENDIX, 1 volumes, Comments: 3 copies of 1 volume
			[5234113] [22-2183] (NDG) [Entered: 01/09/2023 03:56 PM]
	\|}		\|}

Maestro grandeur: /* Appeal Docket */ added Matt Kezhaya appellant brief

2022-11-04T20:49:46Z

Appeal Docket: added Matt Kezhaya appellant brief

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 |  style="text-align:center;" |  [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_BriefAddendum_5212084.pdf|📄]]
 | ADDENDUM of APPELLANT FILED by Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya , w/service 10/27/2022 [5212084] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 10/27/2022 09:25 AM]
 |}

Maestro grandeur: /* Appeal Docket */ added brief docket entries

2022-10-27T21:54:54Z

Appeal Docket: added brief docket entries

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:54, 27 October 2022
Line 81:		Line 81:
	\|08/15/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine AppealDeadlineGranted 5187254.pdf\|📄]]\|\| CLERK ORDER:Granting [5187152-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. Brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due 09/26/2022. Appendix due on 09/26/2022. [5187254] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 08/15/2022 09:28 AM]		\|08/15/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine AppealDeadlineGranted 5187254.pdf\|📄]]\|\| CLERK ORDER:Granting [5187152-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. Brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due 09/26/2022. Appendix due on 09/26/2022. [5187254] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 08/15/2022 09:28 AM]
	\|-		\|-
	\|09/22/2022		\|09/22/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppealDeadlineRequest_5201147.pdf\|📄]]\|\| \|MOTION for extension of time to file brief until 10/26/2022, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 09/22/2022. [5201147] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 09/22/2022 07:17 PM]
	\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppealDeadlineRequest_5201147.pdf\|📄]]
	\|MOTION for extension of time to file brief until 10/26/2022, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 09/22/2022. [5201147] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 09/22/2022 07:17 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\|09/23/2022		\|09/23/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppealDeadlineGranted_5201367.pdf\|📄]] \|\|CLERK ORDER:Granting [5201147-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. Brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due 10/26/2022. Appendix due on 10/26/2022. No further extensions will be granted. [5201367] [22-2183] (AT) [Entered: 09/23/2022 12:33 PM]
	\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppealDeadlineGranted_5201367.pdf\|📄]]		\|-
	\|CLERK ORDER:Granting [5201147-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. Brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due 10/26/2022. Appendix due on 10/26/2022. No further extensions will be granted. [5201367] [22-2183] (AT) [Entered: 09/23/2022 12:33 PM]		\| 10/26/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| 🔒 \|\|APPELLANT brief of Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya submitted for review. The time for filing the subsequent brief (if any) does not begin to run until the brief has been approved and filed. To open/view this brief, you must first login to CM/ECF and then open the document link in your Notice of Docket Activity. Only direct recipients on accounts can open this document. [5211983] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 10/26/2022 11:52 PM]
			\|-
			\| 10/26/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| 🔒 \|\|Addendum of APPELLANT submitted for review by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. To open/view this addendum, you must first login to CM/ECF and then open the document link in your Notice of Docket Activity. [5211984] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 10/26/2022 11:53 PM]
			\|-
			\| 10/27/2022
			\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine BriefDeficiency 5212079.pdf\|📄]]
			\| Brief deficiency notice sent to counsel, Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. [5212079] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 10/27/2022 09:19 AM]
			\|-
			\| 10/27/2022
			\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_BriefAddendum_5212084.pdf\|📄]]
			\| ADDENDUM of APPELLANT FILED by Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya , w/service 10/27/2022 [5212084] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 10/27/2022 09:25 AM]
	\|}		\|}

Maestro grandeur: added infobox

2022-10-14T03:52:00Z

added infobox

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:52, 14 October 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Lawsuits

			\| title={{PAGENAME}}

			\| image=[[File:City of Belle Plaine.png\|250px]]

			\| caption=

			\| filedate=6/06/2022

			\| jurisdiction=US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

			\| plaintiff=Matt Kezhaya; originally listed as "The Satanic Temple Inc."

			\| defendant=City of Belle Plaine

			\| intervenor=N/A

			\| state=Minnesota

			\| case=[https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/44813896/The_Satanic_Temple_v_City_of_Belle_Plaine 0:22-cv-02183]

			\| result=[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59240138/satanic-temple-inc-the-v-city-of-belle-plaine-mn/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-58 Kezhaya sanctioned]

			\| appeal1=Ongoing
			\| appeal2=N/A
			\| appeal3=N/A
			\| finalresult=N/A
			}}

	Lead counsel for The Satanic Temple [[Matthew Kezhaya]] is appealing case sanctions in the amount of $16,943.40 from 0:21-cv-00336-WMW ("[[Satanic_Temple,_The_v._Belle_Plaine,_City_of\|Satanic Temple I]]").		Lead counsel for The Satanic Temple [[Matthew Kezhaya]] is appealing case sanctions in the amount of $16,943.40 from 0:21-cv-00336-WMW ("[[Satanic_Temple,_The_v._Belle_Plaine,_City_of\|Satanic Temple I]]").

Maestro grandeur: /* Appeal Docket */ added appeal extension request and granting

2022-09-28T22:30:11Z

Appeal Docket: added appeal extension request and granting

Maestro grandeur: /* Appeal Docket */ added deadline extension

2022-09-18T03:43:00Z

Appeal Docket: added deadline extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:43, 18 September 2022
Line 46:		Line 46:
	\|-		\|-
	\|07/06/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_MotionAddPartyDenied_5174602.pdf\|📄]] \|\| JUDGE ORDER:Appellant’s motion to add Green Espel PLLP as an appellee is denied. The motion to remove the Satanic Temple as a party on appeal is granted. [5169794-2] Adp July 2022 [5174602] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 07/06/2022 02:31 PM]		\|07/06/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_MotionAddPartyDenied_5174602.pdf\|📄]] \|\| JUDGE ORDER:Appellant’s motion to add Green Espel PLLP as an appellee is denied. The motion to remove the Satanic Temple as a party on appeal is granted. [5169794-2] Adp July 2022 [5174602] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 07/06/2022 02:31 PM]
			\|-
			\|08/14/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppealDeadlineRequest_5187152.pdf\|📄]] \|\| MOTION for extension of time to file brief until 09/26/2022, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 08/14/2022. [5187152] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 08/14/2022 09:07 PM]
			\|-
			\|08/15/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppealDeadlineGranted_5187254.pdf\|📄]] \|\| CLERK ORDER:Granting [5187152-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. Brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due 09/26/2022. Appendix due on 09/26/2022. [5187254] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 08/15/2022 09:28 AM]
	\|}		\|}

	=References=		=References=
	<references />		<references />
	[[Category:Lawsuits]]		[[Category:Lawsuits]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:30, 28 September 2022
Line 7:		Line 7:
	! Date !! style="text-align:center;" \| PDF File !! Docket entry		! Date !! style="text-align:center;" \| PDF File !! Docket entry
	\|-		\|-
	\| 06/06/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine CaseDocketed 5164660.pdf\|📄]] \|\| Civil case docketed.		\| 06/06/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine CaseDocketed 5164660.pdf\|📄]]\|\| Civil case docketed.
	[5164660] [22-2183] (CBO) [Entered: 06/06/2022 11:56 AM]		[5164660] [22-2183] (CBO) [Entered: 06/06/2022 11:56 AM]
	\|-		\|-
	\| 06/06/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_OriginalCourtDocket_5164665~~.pdf\|📄]] \|\| Originating court document filed consisting of docket entries, order filed 5/24/2022, judgment filed 5/25/2022, and notice of appeal filed 6/2/2022.		\| 06/06/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine OriginalCourtDocket 5164665.pdf\|📄]]\|\| Originating court document filed consisting of docket entries, order filed 5/24/2022, judgment filed 5/25/2022, and notice of appeal filed 6/2/2022.
	[5164665] [22-2183] (CBO) [Entered: 06/06/2022 12:00 PM]		[5164665] [22-2183] (CBO) [Entered: 06/06/2022 12:00 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\| 06/06/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_BriefingSchedule_5164666~~.pdf\|📄]] \|\| BRIEFING SCHEDULE SET AS FOLLOWS:		\| 06/06/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine BriefingSchedule 5164666.pdf\|📄]]\|\| BRIEFING SCHEDULE SET AS FOLLOWS:
	Transcript due on or before 07/18/2022. Appendix due 07/26/2022. BRIEF APPELLANT, The Satanic Temple due 07/26/2022		Transcript due on or before 07/18/2022. Appendix due 07/26/2022. BRIEF APPELLANT, The Satanic Temple due 07/26/2022
	Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.		Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.
	[5164666] [22-2183] (CBO) [Entered: 06/06/2022 12:01 PM]		[5164666] [22-2183] (CBO) [Entered: 06/06/2022 12:01 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\| 06/06/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_KezhayaAppearance_5164893~~.pdf\|📄]] \|\| 1 pg, 107.08 KB APPEARANCE filed by Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant The Satanic Temple w/service 06/06/2022 [5164893] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 06/06/2022 06:52 PM]		\| 06/06/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine KezhayaAppearance 5164893.pdf\|📄]]\|\| 1 pg, 107.08 KB APPEARANCE filed by Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant The Satanic Temple w/service 06/06/2022 [5164893] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 06/06/2022 06:52 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\| 06/07/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine MillsAppearance 5165177.pdf\|📄]] \|\| APPEARANCE filed by Monte A. Mills for Appellee City of Belle Plaine w/service 06/07/2022 [5165177] [22-2183] (MM) [Entered: 06/07/2022 12:29 PM]		\| 06/07/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine MillsAppearance 5165177.pdf\|📄]]\|\| APPEARANCE filed by Monte A. Mills for Appellee City of Belle Plaine w/service 06/07/2022 [5165177] [22-2183] (MM) [Entered: 06/07/2022 12:29 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\| 06/07/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine SwensonAppearance 5165181.pdf\|📄]] \|\| APPEARANCE filed by Katherine M. Swenson for Appellee City of Belle Plaine w/service 06/07/2022 [5165181] [22-2183] (KMS) [Entered: 06/07/2022 12:41 PM]		\| 06/07/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine SwensonAppearance 5165181.pdf\|📄]]\|\| APPEARANCE filed by Katherine M. Swenson for Appellee City of Belle Plaine w/service 06/07/2022 [5165181] [22-2183] (KMS) [Entered: 06/07/2022 12:41 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\| 06/08/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine NameChange and Caption 5165680.pdf\|📄]] \|\| CLERK LETTER sent regarding new caption in case adding Matthew Kezhaya as appellant. [5165680] [22-2183] (CBO) [Entered: 06/08/2022 01:13 PM]		\| 06/08/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine NameChange and Caption 5165680.pdf\|📄]]\|\| CLERK LETTER sent regarding new caption in case adding Matthew Kezhaya as appellant. [5165680] [22-2183] (CBO) [Entered: 06/08/2022 01:13 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\|06/09/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_Receipt_5165939~~.pdf\|📄]] \|\| Originating court document filed consisting of district court receipt number 446411114302 in the amount of $16,943.40 issued to Kezhaya Law LLC. [5165939] [22-2183] (CBO) [Entered: 06/09/2022 08:44 AM]		\|06/09/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine Receipt 5165939.pdf\|📄]]\|\| Originating court document filed consisting of district court receipt number 446411114302 in the amount of $16,943.40 issued to Kezhaya Law LLC. [5165939] [22-2183] (CBO) [Entered: 06/09/2022 08:44 AM]
	\|-		\|-
	\|06/10/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| N/A \|\| RECORD FILED - MOTION TRANSCRIPT, 1 volumes, Comments: District Court document #57 [Copy do not return to the District Court at end of case], Source Location: USDC / MN, Dt. of Proceeding/Hearing: 04/27/2021, No. of Pgs.: 74, Court Reporter: Simpson, Lori Ann		\|06/10/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| N/A \|\| RECORD FILED - MOTION TRANSCRIPT, 1 volumes, Comments: District Court document #57 [Copy do not return to the District Court at end of case], Source Location: USDC / MN, Dt. of Proceeding/Hearing: 04/27/2021, No. of Pgs.: 74, Court Reporter: Simpson, Lori Ann
	[5166650] [22-2183] (STL) [Entered: 06/10/2022 01:12 PM]		[5166650] [22-2183] (STL) [Entered: 06/10/2022 01:12 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\|06/10/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_Appearance_5166814~~.pdf\|📄]] \|\| APPEARANCE filed by Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 06/10/2022 [5166814] [22-2183]--[Edited 06/13/2022 by CRJ. COUNSEL HAS REFILED HIS APP FORM AFTER RECEIVING CASE CAPTION UPDATE. THE APP FORM FILED ON 6/6/2022 WILL BE LOCKED.] (MAK) [Entered: 06/10/2022 07:50 PM]		\|06/10/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine Appearance 5166814.pdf\|📄]]\|\| APPEARANCE filed by Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 06/10/2022 [5166814] [22-2183]--[Edited 06/13/2022 by CRJ. COUNSEL HAS REFILED HIS APP FORM AFTER RECEIVING CASE CAPTION UPDATE. THE APP FORM FILED ON 6/6/2022 WILL BE LOCKED.] (MAK) [Entered: 06/10/2022 07:50 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\|06/21/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_MethodAppendix_5169778~~.pdf\|📄]] \|\| METHOD of appendix preparation filed by Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya - Separate Appendix - w/service 06/21/2022 [5169778] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 06/21/2022 05:22 PM]		\|06/21/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine MethodAppendix 5169778.pdf\|📄]]\|\| METHOD of appendix preparation filed by Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya - Separate Appendix - w/service 06/21/2022 [5169778] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 06/21/2022 05:22 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\|06/21/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_Statement_5169791~~.pdf\|📄]] \|\| STATEMENT of issues filed by Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya - w/service 06/21/2022. [5169791] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 06/21/2022 06:22 PM]		\|06/21/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine Statement 5169791.pdf\|📄]]\|\| STATEMENT of issues filed by Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya - w/service 06/21/2022. [5169791] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 06/21/2022 06:22 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\|06/21/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| N/A \|\| MOTION to add a party to this case., to dismiss, The Satanic Temple (plaintiff) , as a party to this appeal, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 06/21/2022. [5169793] [22-2183]--[Edited 06/22/2022 by CRJ. COUNSEL HAS REFILED MOTION TO INCLUDE EXHIBIT 1, SEE HISTORY# 5169794] (MAK) [Entered: 06/21/2022 06:46 PM]		\|06/21/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| N/A \|\| MOTION to add a party to this case., to dismiss, The Satanic Temple (plaintiff) , as a party to this appeal, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 06/21/2022. [5169793] [22-2183]--[Edited 06/22/2022 by CRJ. COUNSEL HAS REFILED MOTION TO INCLUDE EXHIBIT 1, SEE HISTORY# 5169794] (MAK) [Entered: 06/21/2022 06:46 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\|06/21/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AddCreditor_5169794~~.pdf\|📄]] \|\| MOTION to add a party to this case., to dismiss, (Add Greene Espel PLLP as creditor-appellee; dismiss The Satanic Temple as disinterested on appeal) , as a party to this appeal, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 06/21/2022. [5169794] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 06/21/2022 06:54 PM]		\|06/21/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine AddCreditor 5169794.pdf\|📄]]\|\| MOTION to add a party to this case., to dismiss, (Add Greene Espel PLLP as creditor-appellee; dismiss The Satanic Temple as disinterested on appeal) , as a party to this appeal, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 06/21/2022. [5169794] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 06/21/2022 06:54 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\|06/21/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_Designation_5169795~~.pdf\|📄]] \|\| DESIGNATION of record filed by Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. w/service 06/21/2022 [5169795] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 06/21/2022 07:36 PM]		\|06/21/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine Designation 5169795.pdf\|📄]]\|\| DESIGNATION of record filed by Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. w/service 06/21/2022 [5169795] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 06/21/2022 07:36 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\|06/30/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine ResponseOpposition 5173106.pdf\|📄]] \|\| RESPONSE in opposition to motion add party, motion dismiss party [5169794-3] filed by Attorney Ms. Katherine M. Swenson for Appellee City of Belle Plaine , w/service 06/30/2022. [5173106] [22-2183]--[Edited 07/01/2022 by CRJ. Entry edited to remove duplicate link] (KMS) [Entered: 06/30/2022 01:49 PM]		\|06/30/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine ResponseOpposition 5173106.pdf\|📄]]\|\| RESPONSE in opposition to motion add party, motion dismiss party [5169794-3] filed by Attorney Ms. Katherine M. Swenson for Appellee City of Belle Plaine , w/service 06/30/2022. [5173106] [22-2183]--[Edited 07/01/2022 by CRJ. Entry edited to remove duplicate link] (KMS) [Entered: 06/30/2022 01:49 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\|07/06/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_MotionAddPartyDenied_5174602~~.pdf\|📄]] \|\| JUDGE ORDER:Appellant’s motion to add Green Espel PLLP as an appellee is denied. The motion to remove the Satanic Temple as a party on appeal is granted. [5169794-2] Adp July 2022 [5174602] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 07/06/2022 02:31 PM]		\|07/06/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine MotionAddPartyDenied 5174602.pdf\|📄]]\|\| JUDGE ORDER:Appellant’s motion to add Green Espel PLLP as an appellee is denied. The motion to remove the Satanic Temple as a party on appeal is granted. [5169794-2] Adp July 2022 [5174602] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 07/06/2022 02:31 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\|08/14/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppealDeadlineRequest_5187152~~.pdf\|📄]] \|\| MOTION for extension of time to file brief until 09/26/2022, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 08/14/2022. [5187152] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 08/14/2022 09:07 PM]		\|08/14/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine AppealDeadlineRequest 5187152.pdf\|📄]]\|\| MOTION for extension of time to file brief until 09/26/2022, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 08/14/2022. [5187152] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 08/14/2022 09:07 PM]
	\|-		\|-
	\|08/15/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-~~2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppealDeadlineGranted_5187254~~.pdf\|📄]] \|\| CLERK ORDER:Granting [5187152-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. Brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due 09/26/2022. Appendix due on 09/26/2022. [5187254] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 08/15/2022 09:28 AM]		\|08/15/2022 \|\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183 Kezhaya v Belle Plaine AppealDeadlineGranted 5187254.pdf\|📄]]\|\| CLERK ORDER:Granting [5187152-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. Brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due 09/26/2022. Appendix due on 09/26/2022. [5187254] [22-2183] (CRJ) [Entered: 08/15/2022 09:28 AM]
			\|-
			\|09/22/2022
			\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppealDeadlineRequest_5201147.pdf\|📄]]
			\|MOTION for extension of time to file brief until 10/26/2022, filed by Attorney Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya for Appellant Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya w/service 09/22/2022. [5201147] [22-2183] (MAK) [Entered: 09/22/2022 07:17 PM]
			\|-
			\|09/23/2022
			\| style="text-align:center;" \| [[Media:22-2183_Kezhaya_v_Belle_Plaine_AppealDeadlineGranted_5201367.pdf\|📄]]
			\|CLERK ORDER:Granting [5201147-2] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. Matthew A. Kezhaya. Brief of Matthew A. Kezhaya due 10/26/2022. Appendix due on 10/26/2022. No further extensions will be granted. [5201367] [22-2183] (AT) [Entered: 09/23/2022 12:33 PM]
	\|}		\|}