Janecka v. Franklin

Second Circuit

Janecka v. Franklin

843 F.2d 110, 1988 WL 28740

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided April 4, 1988·No. No. 944, Docket 87-7997·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court entered in the Southern District of New York, Leonard B. Sand, Judge, dismissing their complaint seeking damages from defendants for alleged violation of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2610 et seq. (1982). The complaint alleged that defendants had violated the Act by causing a recording device to be attached to the home telephone of defendant Robert S. Franklin, the former husband of plaintiff Cheryl Janecka, during the course of a contested child custody proceeding following their divorce. In an opinion reported at 684 F.Supp. 24 (1987), the district court ruled that the complaint should be dismissed on the authority of Anonymous v. Anonymous, 558 F.2d 677 (2d Cir.1977). We agree and affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court.

We have considered all of plaintiffs’ arguments on the present appeal and have found them to be without merit, though not so lacking in merit that sanctions should be imposed.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Defendants’ motions for special sanctions are denied. Normal costs are awarded to defendants.

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

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court entered in the Southern District of New York, Leonard B. Sand, Judge, dismissing their complaint seeking damages from defendants for alleged violation of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2610 et seq. (1982). The complaint alleged that defendants had violated the Act by causing a recording device to be attached to the home telephone of defendant Robert S. Franklin, the former husband of plaintiff Cheryl Janecka, during the course of a contested child custody proceeding following their divorce. In an opinion reported at 684 F.Supp. 24 (1987), the district court ruled that the complaint should be dismissed on the authority of Anonymous v. Anonymous, 558 F.2d 677 (2d Cir.1977). We agree and affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the opinion of the district court.

We have considered all of plaintiffs’ arguments on the present appeal and have found them to be without merit, though not so lacking in merit that sanctions should be imposed.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Defendants’ motions for special sanctions are denied. Normal costs are awarded to defendants.

Janecka v. Franklin, 843 F.2d 110, 1988 WL 28740 (2d Cir. 1988).

Pincite

843 F.2d 110 (Janecka v. Franklin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related