Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel

Second Circuit

Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel

604 F. App'x 91

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 2015

Docket14-2815-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 604 F. App'x 91 (Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel, 604 F. App'x 91 (2d Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Christian Viertel, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment denying his third motion to vacate the 2000 default judgment entered against him. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Viertel’s arguments are barred by the law of the case doctrine, which “forecloses reconsideration of issues that were decid *92 ed — or that could have been decided — during prior proceedings” in the same case. United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 471 (2d Cir.2007). His arguments on appeal were either raised and decided in conjunction with his 2004 or 2010 appeals, or could have been raised in one or both of the prior appeals. He has' forfeited his argument that the district court’s pro se intake unit improperly rejected his filings by failing to raise it below. See In re Nortel Networks Corp. Sec. Litig., 539 F.3d 129, 132 (2d Cir.2008).

Additionally, we find no reason, in Vier-tel’s brief or elsewhere, to overturn our prior holding that the district court had personal jurisdiction over Viertel, and that the default judgment was properly entered. See Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel, 417 F.3d 292 (2d Cir.2005).

We have considered Viertel’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Christian Viertel, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment denying his third motion to vacate the 2000 default judgment entered against him. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Viertel’s arguments are barred by the law of the case doctrine, which “forecloses reconsideration of issues that were decid *92 ed — or that could have been decided — during prior proceedings” in the same case. United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 471 (2d Cir.2007). His arguments on appeal were either raised and decided in conjunction with his 2004 or 2010 appeals, or could have been raised in one or both of the prior appeals. He has' forfeited his argument that the district court’s pro se intake unit improperly rejected his filings by failing to raise it below. See In re Nortel Networks Corp. Sec. Litig., 539 F.3d 129, 132 (2d Cir.2008).

Additionally, we find no reason, in Vier-tel’s brief or elsewhere, to overturn our prior holding that the district court had personal jurisdiction over Viertel, and that the default judgment was properly entered. See Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel, 417 F.3d 292 (2d Cir.2005).

We have considered Viertel’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

604 F. App'x 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burda-media-inc-v-viertel-ca2-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack