HERBERT J. NEVYAS, M.D., and ANITA NJVYAS-WALLACE, M.D., and NEVYAS EYE ASSOCIATES, P.C.

, Plaintiffs
vs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TFJAL DryISION Philadelphia County NOVEMBER TERM,2OO3

NO.
DOMINIC MORGAN, and STEVEN A FRIEDMAN
Defendants

946

Pronosed ORDER And

Noq

to wit

this

day

of

,20II

upon consideration of plaintiffs,

8/10/11 Petition for Civil Contempt and Sanctions," and responses of the other parties, the

Petition is DElritED.

BY THE COURT:

DiNubile,

S.J.

Dominic J. Morgan, pro se PO Box 1011 Marlton, NJ 08053 rc10\ 364-3367 HERBERT J. NEVYAS, tuI.D., and ANITA NEVYAS-WALLACE, M.D., and NEVYAS EYE ASSOCIATES, P.C., Plaintiffs
VS.

COURT OF COMrlviON PLEAS

TRIAL DTVISION
Philadelphia County NOVEMBER TERM.2OO3

NO.
DOMINIC MORGAN, and STEVEN A FRIEDMAN
T)efenrlqntc

946

Pno

DonrrN Crvrr, CoNruupr .{Np SnNctroNs

FFS'

8/I

TION FOR

1-13.

Denied as stated. Plaintiffs' Petition for Civil Contempt and Sanctions is based

upon plaintiffs' misrepresentation that the Honorable Victor J. DiNubile, Jr.'s 3/16lII Order enjoins defendant Morgan 'ufrom continuing to publish statements cnticizing

Plaintiffs'/Petitioners' professional actions and integrity"( Petition lfl, italics added).

Judge DiNubile did not use the

word "continuing," did not enjoin any statements

pubiished on Morgan's website at the time of trial, did not award any damages, and oniy enjoined subsequent publishing of certain statements all removed vears ago. Plaintiffs

misrepresentby improperly paraphrasing Judge DiNubile's 3116/11 Order and ignoring His Honor's three other Orders and Opinion. By way of further answer: After concluding a six-day bench trial on 3/16/11, the
Honorable Victor J. DiNubile, Jr. issued four Orders and one Opinion, all pursuant to the Superior Court's 2007 Order remanding this case for trial:

tl30 we

agree with the trial court that Morgan agreed to take down the specific libelous r+'ording from his website as posted on July 30, 2003, and that, pursuant to the agreement, those specific libelous statements were to

be prohibited thereafter.... his letter specifically reserved the right to "update" his website "within the legal guidelines as allowed bf tne taw and the First Amendment which grants me freedom of speechi' ....Likewise, we find that Morgan did not agree to waive his right to make, if he so chooses anci at iris own risk, libeloris statements in the future, unrelated to the statements on his website as of July 30, 2003. !f 31 The question remains, however, whether the siatements that appeared on the website that are the subject of this action are the same as the prohibited postings of Jury 30,2003, and, of course, if not, whether they are in fact defamatory. Accordingly, because these issues were not addressed by the trial court, we vacate the order and remand for further findings and proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Nevyes v. Mcrgan,2007 pA Super. 6d at fl,Jf :O_Jf

Judge DiNubile's four Orders and one Opinion are:

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Judge DiNubile's Judge DiNubile's

(s)

iucige DiNubile's tzgiri order denying post-trial motions (Exhibit 3 atpp. l_ 2, underlining added) Judge DiNubile's 0610_6/11 order denying any sealing of record (Exhibit a) Judge DiNubile's 6117ll1 opinion for Superior court lrxhibit 5 at p. g, underlining added)

3lr6fir order re verdict (Exhibit r at p.2) 4la6/fi order re informa pauperis (Exhibit 2)

At trial, Judge DiNubile evaluated Morgan's websites (which included all

statements plaintiffs cite in their instant petition) and ruled:

5. Any future publication in vioiation of this Order, after due notice to Defendant Dominic Morgan and after hearing before this Court in which a finding is made that there is such a violation, shall result in a finding of civil contempiof Court and imposition of appropriate sanctions.
Judge DiNubile's

03fi6/r1 order

re verdict (Exhibit

r atp.2)

Judge DiNubile explained:

Plaintiffs maintain that this Court's injunctive Order against Morgan was ambiguous. This Court respectfully disagrees. A reading of the inJunctive Order, coupled with the findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, make ii clear that Morgan's publications in the swnmer of 2003 were defamatory and that Morgan and the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement shortly thereafter,ln which Morgan agreed to diseonti-nue the publieation of the defarnatory material. In 2005, .Iudge Maier found that avalid settlement agreement existed, which was affirmed by the

Superior Court. This Court has confirmed the previous rulings precluding publioation of subsequent defarnatory materiai Paragraph Ten of this Court,s Additional Findings of Fact states that there has been no proof of subsequent violations, at least since the hearing by Judge Maier. Whether ivroffi breached the Settlement Agreement prior to the hearing before Judge Nlaier loes not, in any way, affect the legal significance of this court's injunctive order. Judge DiNubile's 04128111 Order denying post-trial motions (Exhibit 3, underlining added)

AND
Plaintiffs also argue on appeal that this Court's injunctive Order against Morgan was ambiguous. This court respectfully dirugr".r. A reading of the injunctive order, coupled with the Findingsof Fact and ConclusLns of Law, make it clear that Morgan's publications in the summer of 2A03 werc defamatory and that Morgan and Plaintiffs entered into an agreement shortly thereafter, in which Morgan agreed to discontin,r" th" publication of the defamatory material. In 2005, Judge Maier found that a valid settlement agreement existed, which was affirmed by the Superior Court. This Court has confirmed the previous rulings precluding publication of subsequent defamatory material Paragraph Ten of this Court's Additional Findings of Fact states that there has been no proof of subsequent violations, at least since the hearing by Judge Maier. whether Morgan breached the Settlement Agreement prior to the hearing before Judle ivlaier does not, in any way, affect the iegal significance of this court,s injunctive Order.
Judge DiNubile's added)

06/17/ll Opinion for Superior Court (Exhibit

5, underlining

At trial, plaintiffs either lost their arguments or failed to argue the statements
which plaintiffs cite in their petition, and did not cite those statements in their post-trial

motion. Even if Morgan's statements were not true, the statute of limitations to complain
has long expired, and Morgan has not added anything to any website since trial (nor do

plaintiffs so allege).
Judge DiNubile enjoined subsequent (future) publication of certain statements that had aii been removed years aeo, and did not - as plaintiffs misrepresent - enjoin

continuing publication of any statement which plaintiffs cite in their petition.

Plaintiffs have repeatedly misrepresented court orders - e.g., in response to

plaintiffs' "on notice" letter atlQ} (plaintiffs' exhibit 7), Morgan noted in his reply
(plaintiffs' exhibit 8, italics
adde<i):

Insofar as statement#20, misrepresenting court orders - one example: On November 17 ,2A83 Judge $tlv. ester denTed your reque.rt prili*inory o fa, injunction. so you, gn fficer of the cotlrt, wrote my inteinet cirrier, Discount Domain Registry, Ini.,,who you had beei threateninj to sue they did not shut my website: "[YJouiold me that unles.s tlliiiig" goun approval.to the_content of the website 'lasiksuclcs4u.com,' yo, iou\d remove the website. The iudge did not approve the websiti.', This misrepresentation, undeifalie color of staie action, led to shutting my website and dissemination of password-protected uioiuil"g trv -ut".iur, free speech rights.

if

Plaintiffs do not (and cannot) dispute misrepresenting court orders.

14.

Admitted.

15-18. Denied as stated. See answers above to tfti l_13. 19-20' Denied. Morgan did not commit civil contempt, as explained in the answers above; and,
to the extent plaintiffs cite conclusions of law, no response is necessary.

WHEREFORE, defendant Morgan respectfully asks this Honorable Court deny plaintiffs petition for Civil Contempt and Sanctions.
itted,

Date: August26,201l

Dominic J. Morgan, pro se

PO Box 1011 Marlton, NJ 08053

HERBERT J. NEVYAS, M.D., and ANITA NEVYAS-WALLACE, tuI.D., and NEVYAS EYE ASSOCIATES, P.C., Plaintiffs
VS,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TRIAL D|v*ISION Philadelphia County NOVEMBER TERM,2OO3

NO.
DOMINIC MORGAN. and STEVEN A FRIEDMAN
Defendants

946

Plaintiffs' Petition for Civil Contempt is based upon plaintiffs' misrepresentation that the
Honorable Victor J. DiNubile, Jr.'s

03lT6lll Order enjoins defendant Morgan'ofrom cantinuing

to publish statements criticizing Plaintiffs'/Petitioners' professional actions and integrity,'

(Petition

lil,

italics added). Judge DiNubile did not use the word"contintting,', did not enjoin

any statements published on lr4organ's website at the time of triai, did not awardany damages,
and only enjoined subsequent publishing of certain statements all removed years ago. plaintiffs

misrepresent by improperly paraphrasing Judge DiNubile's 03116111 Order and ignoring His

Honor's three other Orders and Opinion.

After concluding a six-day bench trial on 03116/11, the Honorable Victor J. DiNubile, Jr.
issued four Orders and one Opinion, all pursuant to the Superior Court's 2A07 Orderremanding

this case for trial:

fl 30 we agree with the trial court that Morgan agreed to take down the specific libelous wording frorn his website as posted on,ruly 30, 2003, and that, pursuant to the agreement, those specific libelous statements were to be prohibited thereafter.... his letter specifically reserved the right to u'updateo'his website o'within the legal guidelines as alloweii Oy ttre law and the First Amendment which grants me freedom of speech."....Liklwise, we find that

Morgan did not agree to waive his right to make, if he so chooses and at his own risk, libelous statements in the fi,rture, unrelated to the statements on his website as of July 30,2AA3. ti 31 The question remains, however, whether the statements that appeared on the website that are the subjeet of this action are the same as the prohibited postings of July 30,2003, and, of course, if not, whether they are in fact defamatory. Accordingly, because these issues were not addressed by the trial court, we vacate the order and remand for further findings and proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Nevyas v. Morgan,2007 PA Super. 66 atll,,30-31
Judge DiNubile's four Orders and one Opinion are:

(l)
(2) (3)

(4) (s)

Judge DiNubile's 3116111 Order re verdict (Exhibit I at p. Z) Judge DiNubile's 4/06/11 Order re informa pauperis (Exhibit 2) Judge DiNubile's a4/28111 order denying post-trial motions (Exhibit 3 atpp. l-2, underlining added) Judge DiNubile's 06106/11 order denying any sealing of record (Exhibit a) Judge DiNubile's 6/17lT1 Opinion for Superior Court (Exhibit 5 at p. 8, underlining added)

At trial, Judge DiNubile evaluated Morgan's websites (which included all statements plaintiffs cite in their instant petition) and ruled:
due notice to Defendant Dominic Morgan and after hearing before this Court in which a frnding is made that there is such a violation, shall result in a finding of civil contempt of Court and imposition of appropriate sanctions. Judge

5. Any future pubiicaiion in violation of this Order, after

DiNubile's 03116/11 Order re verdict (Exhibit

atp.2)

Judge DiNubile explained:

Piaintiffs maintain that this Court's injunctive Order against Morgan was ambiguous. This Court respectfully disagrees. A reading of the injunctive Order, coupled with the findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, make it clear that Morgan's publications in the summer of 2003 were defamatory and that Morgan and the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement shortly thereafter, in which Morgan agreed to discontinue the publication of the defamatory material. In2}A1,Judge Maier found that a valid settlement agreement existed, which was affirmed by the Superior Court. This Court has confirmed the previous rulings precluding publication of subsequent defamatory material. Paragraph Ten of this Ccurt's Additional Findings of Fact states that there has been no proof of subsequent

violations, at least since the hearing by Judge Maier. Whether Morgan breached the Settlernent Agreernent prior to the hearing bef,ore Judge Maier does not, in any way, affect the legal significance of this court's injunctive order.
Judge DiNubile's 04128111 order denying post-trial motions (Exiribit 3, underlining added)

AND
Plaintiffs also argue on appeal that this Court's injunctive Order against Morgan was arnbiguous. This Court respectfully disagrees. A reading of the injunctive Order, coupled with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, make it clear that Morgan's publications in the summer of 2003 were defamatory and that iv{organ and Piaintiffs entered into an agreement shortiy thereafter, in which Morgan agreed to discontinue the publication of the defamatory matefial.In2005, Judge Maier found that avalid settlement agreement existed, which was affirmed by the Superior Court. This Court has confirmed the previous rulings precluding publication of subsequent defamatory material Paragraph Ten of this Court's Additional Findings of Fact states that there has been no proof of subseque4t violations, at least since the hearing by Judge Maier. Whether Morgan breached the Settlement Agreement prior to the hearing before Judge Maier does not, in any way, affect the legal significance of this Court's injunctive Order.
Judge

DiNubile's 06117/11 Opinion for Superior Court (Exhibit 5, underlining added)

At trial, plaintiffs either lost their arguments or failed to argue the statements which plaintiffs cite in their petition, and did not cite those statements,in their post-trial motion. Even
Morgan's statements were not true, the statute of limitations to complain has long expired, and
Morgan has not added anything to any website since trial (nor do plaintiffs so allege).
Judge DiNubile enjoined subsequent (future) publication of certain statements that had all been removed years ago, and did not - as plaintiffs misrepresent - enjoin continuingpublication

if

of any statement whieh piaintiffl; eite in their petition. Plaintiffs have repeatedly misrepresented court orders - e.g., in response to plaintiffs' "on notice" letter at tf20 (plaintiffs' exhibit 7), Morgan noted in his reply (plaintiffs' exhibit 8, italics
adcieri):

Insofar as statemerrt #]Q, mlslepresenting court orders - one example: on November 1 7, 2003 Judqg sylie^s t-er de nie d your r e que s t o p, i *,inory fo, injunction. So you,-an fficer of the conrt, wrate my inteinet ciryier, "'l Discount Domain R si:!/: Inc.,-who you had been threatening to sue tf they did not shut my website: "[YJou told me thot unless tle-judge gave qpproval to the content of the website 'lasiksucks4u.com,' you wouldTeiovZ thu iiutitt. ri; j;;g, did not approve the website. " This misrepresentation, under false color of Jtaie'action, led to shutting my website and dissemination of password-protected -ut..iut, violating my free speech rights.

Plaintiffs do not (and cannot) dispute misrepresenting court orders. Concr,usroN:

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs' Petition for Civil Contempt and Sanctions
shouird be denied.

VnRrrrcarrox:
I, Dominic J' Morgan, defendantpro se verifu these statements to be true, and understand
that these statements are matle subjeet to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 49fr4 relating io unsworn
fal sification to authorities.

Csnrnrclrr or SnRvrcn:
I certify that atrue and correct copy of the attached document has been e-mailed or mailed first class prepaid to the persons listed below on the date listed below:
Leon Silvefinan? Esquire Stein & Silverman, P.C. 230 South Broad Street, 18ft Floor Philadelphia, PA. 19102 maryellen@steinandsilverman.com
Maureen F itzgeruld, Es quire Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 2Libertv Place 50 South 16tr' Street -Z2nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 mfitzgerald@eckertseamans. com

lly submitted,

Date:

August26,20ll
, pro
se

& informa pauperis