Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14

Case 18-3278, Document 125, 12/14/2018, 2455314, Page1 of 14

IN THE
IN THE
United States Court
Einiteb 6tate5 of Appeals
Court of for the
appeat5 for Second Circuit
tjje &emit Circuit
WILLIAM ALBERT HAYNES
WILLIAM ALBERT HAYNES III, individually :: No.
III, individually 18-3278
No. 18-3278
and on
and behalf of
on behalf of all
all others similarly situated,
others similarly situated, ::
:
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Plaintiff-Appellant, ::
:
vs.
vs. :
:
WORLD
WORLD WRESTLING
WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT,
ENTERTAINMENT, :
INC.,
INC., :
:
Defendant-Appellee.
Defendant-Appellee. ::

RUSS MCCULLOUGH, RYAN


RUSS MCCULLOUGH, RYAN SAKODA and
:: No.
SAKODA and 18-3322
No. 18-3322
MATTHEW ROBERT
MATTHEW ROBERT WIESE, individually
:
WIESE, individually
and on
and behalf of
on behalf of all
all others
others similarly situated,
:•
similarly situated,
:
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, ::
:
vs.
vs. :
:
WORLD
WORLD WRESTLING
WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT,
ENTERTAINMENT, :
INC.,
INC., :
:
Defendant-Appellee.
Defendant-Appellee. ::

CASSANDRA
CASSANDRA FRAZIER, individually and
FRAZIER, individually and as
as
:: No. 18-3325
No. 18-3325
next
next of
of kin
kin to
to her
her deceased
deceased husband,
husband, :
NELSON
NELSON LEE LEE FRAZIER, JR., and
FRAZIER, JR., and as
as :
personal
personal representative
representative of
of the
the Estate
Estate of:
of
NELSON
NELSON LEE LEE FRAZIER, JR., deceased.
FRAZIER, JR., :
deceased.
:
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
:
vs.
vs. :
:
WORLD
WORLD WRESTLING
WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT,
ENTERTAINMENT, :
INC.,
INC., :
:
Defendant-Appellee.
Defendant-Appellee. ::
Case 18-3278, Document 125, 12/14/2018, 2455314, Page2 of 14

KONSTANTINE
KONSTANTINE W.
W. KYROS and KYROS
KYROS and KYROS :: No. 18-3326
No. 18-3326
LAW
LAW OFFICES,
OFFICES, P.C.,
P.C., :
:
:
Appellants, :
Appellants,
:
vs.
vs. :
:
:
WORLD
WORLD WRESTLING
WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT,
ENTERTAINMENT, :
INC.,
INC., :
:
Appellee. ::
Appellee.

JOSEPH M.
JOSEPH M. LAURINAITIS
LAURINAITIS a/k/a a/k/a Road
Road :: No. 18-3327
No. 18-3327
Warrior Animal, CAROLE
Warrior Animal, CAROLE M. M. SNUKA
SNUKA on on :•
:•
behalf of
behalf of Estate
Estate of JAMES W.
of JAMES W. SNUKA
SNUKA ,, PAUL
PAUL :
ORNDORFF,
ORNDORFF, a/k/a a/k/a Mr.
Mr. Wonderful,
Wonderful, :
SALAVADOR
SALAVADOR GUERRERO
GUERRERO IV, a/k/a Chavo
IV, a/k/a Chavo ::
Guerrero, Jr., KELLI
Guerrero, Jr., KELLI FUJIWARA
FUJIWARA SLOANSLOAN on on :
behalf of
behalf of estate
estate of
of HARRY MASAYOSHI
HARRY MASAYOSHI :•
:
FUJIWARA,
FUJIWARA, BRYANBRYAN EMMETT
EMMETT CLARK, JR.,
CLARK, JR., :
a/k/a Adam
a/k/a Adam Bomb, ANTHONY NORRIS,
Bomb, ANTHONY NORRIS, a/k/a
a/k/a :
Ahmed Johnson,
Ahmed Johnson, JAMES
JAMES HARRIS, a/k/a
HARRIS, a/k/a ::
Kamala,
Kamala, DAVE
DAVE HEBNER,
HEBNER, EARLEARL HEBNER,
HEBNER, :•
CHRIS
CHRIS PALLIES,
PALLIES, a/k/a
a/k/a King
King Kong
Kong Bundy,
Bundy, :•
:
KEN
KEN PATERA,
PATERA, TERRYTERRY MICHAEL
MICHAEL BRUNK,
BRUNK, :
a/k/a Sabu,
a/k/a Sabu, BARRY
BARRY DARSOW,
DARSOW, a/k/a
a/k/a Smash,
Smash, :
BILL
BILL EADIE a/k/a Ax,
EADIE a/k/a Ax, JOHN
JOHN NORD, a/k/a
NORD, a/k/a ::
The Bezerker,
The JONATHAN HUGGER
Bezerker, JONATHAN HUGGER a/k/a
a/k/a :•
Johnny The
Johnny The Bull, JAMES BRUNZELL,
Bull, JAMES BRUNZELL, a/k/aa/k/a :•
:
Jumpin’ Jim,
Jumpin' Jim, SUSAN
SUSAN GREEN,
GREEN, a/k/a
a/k/a Sue
Sue :
Green, ANGELO MOSCA,
Green, ANGELO a/k/a King
MOSCA, a/k/a King Kong
Kong :
Mosca, JAMES
Mosca, JAMES MANLEY,
MANLEY, a/k/a
a/k/a Jim
Jim Powers,
Powers, ::
MICHAEL "MIKE"
MICHAEL “MIKE” ENOS, a/k/a Blake
ENOS, a/k/a Blake :•
Beverly,
Beverly, BRUCE “BUTCH” REED,
BRUCE "BUTCH" a/k/a The
REED, a/k/a The :
:
Natural,
Natural, CARLENE
CARLENE B. MOORE-BEGNAUD,
B. MOORE-BEGNAUD, :
a/k/a Jazz,
a/k/a Jazz, SYLVAIN
SYLVAIN GRENIER,
GRENIER, OMAROMAR :

2
Case 18-3278, Document 125, 12/14/2018, 2455314, Page3 of 14

MIJARES a/k/a
MIJARES a/k/a Omar Atlas, DON
Omar Atlas, DON LEOLEO :
HEATON,
HEATON, a/k/aa/k/a Don
Don Leo Jonathan, TROY
Leo Jonathan, TROY :
:
MARTIN, a/k/a
MARTIN, a/k/a Shane
Shane Douglas, MARC
Douglas, MARC :
COPANI,
COPANI, a/k/a Muhammad Hassan,
a/k/a Muhammad Hassan, MARK
MARK :
CANTERBURY,
CANTERBURY, a/k/a a/k/a Henry
Henry Godwin,
Godwin, :
VICTORIA OTIS,
VICTORIA OTIS, a/k/a
a/k/a Princess Victoria,
Princess Victoria, :
JUDY HARDEE
JUDY HARDEE a/k/a Judy Martin,
a/k/a Judy Martin, MARK
MARK :
:
JINDRAK, GAYLE
JINDRAK, GAYLE SCHECTER
SCHECTER on on Behalf
Behalf of
of:
Estate of JON
Estate of JON RECHNER
RECHNER a.k.aa.k.a Balls
Balls :
Mahoney, BARBARA
Mahoney, BARBARA MARIE MARIE LEYDIG
LEYDIG & & :
BERNARD
BERNARD KNIGHTON
KNIGHTON as as co-representatives
co-representatives :
of
of Estate
Estate of
of Brian
Brian Knighton, a/k/a Axl
Knighton, a/k/a Axl Rotten,
Rotten,:
:
MARTY JANNETTY,
MARTY JANNETTY, JON JON HEIDENREICH,
HEIDENREICH, :
TERRY SZOPINSKI,
TERRY SZOPINSKI, a/k/a a/k/a The
The Warlord,
Warlord, :
SIONE
SIONE HAVEA VAILAHI, a/k/a
HAVEA VAILAHI, a/k/a The
The :
Barbarian, LARRY OLIVER,
Barbarian, LARRY a/k/a The
OLIVER, a/k/a The :
Crippler,
Crippler, BOBBI
BOBBI BILLARD, ASHLEY
BILLARD, ASHLEY :
:
MASSARO, a/k/a
MASSARO, a/k/a Ashley,
Ashley, PERRY
PERRY SATULLO
SATULLO :
a/k/a Perry
a/k/a Perry Saturn,
Saturn, DAVID
DAVID SILVA a/k/a
SILVA a/k/a :
Sylvano
Sylvano Sousa JOHN JETER
Sousa JOHN JETER a/k/a
a/k/a Johnny
Johnny :
Jeter, CHARLES
Jeter, CHARLES BERNARD
BERNARD SCAGGS a.k.a
SCAGGS a.k.a :•
Flash
Flash Funk,
Funk, CHARLES
CHARLES WICKS WICKS a.k.a
a.k.a Chad
Chad :
:
Wicks,
Wicks, SHIRLEY
SHIRLEY FELLOWS
FELLOWS on on Behalf
Behalf of
of :
Estate of TIMOTHY
Estate of TIMOTHY ALAN ALAN SMITH, a/k/a Rex
SMITH, a/k/a Rex:
King,
King, TRACY
TRACY SMOTHERS,
SMOTHERS, a/k/a a/k/a Freddie Joe
Freddie Joe :
Floyd, MICHAEL R
Floyd, MICHAEL R HALAC, a/k/a Mantaur,
HALAC, a/k/a Mantaur, :•
RICK JONES, a/k/a
RICK JONES, a/k/a Black
Black Bart,
Bart, KEN
KEN :
:
JOHNSON, a/k/a
JOHNSON, a/k/a Slick,
Slick, GEORGE
GEORGE GRAY,GRAY, :
a/k/a One
a/k/a Man Gang,
One Man Gang, FERRIN JESSE BARR,
FERRIN JESSE BARR, :
a/k/a JJ
a/k/a JJ Funk,
Funk, LOULOU MARCONI,
MARCONI, ROD ROD PRICE,
PRICE, :
DONALD
DONALD DRIGGERS,
DRIGGERS, RODNEYRODNEY BEGNAUD,
BEGNAUD, :
a/k/a Rodney
a/k/a Rodney Mack,
Mack, RONALD
RONALD SCOTTSCOTT HEARD
HEARD :
:
on
on Behalf
Behalf ofof Estate of RONALD
Estate of RONALD HEARD, a/k/a
HEARD, a/k/a :
Outlaw
Outlaw Ron
Ron Bass,
Bass, and
and BORIS
BORIS ZHUKOV,
ZHUKOV, :
:•
Plaintiffs-Appellants, :
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
:
:
vs.
vs. :
3
Case 18-3278, Document 125, 12/14/2018, 2455314, Page4 of 14

WORLD
WORLD WRESTLING
WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT,
ENTERTAINMENT, ::
INC., and VINCENT
INC., and VINCENT K. MCMAHON,
K. MCMAHON, :•
:
Individually and as
Individually and as Trustee
Trustee ofof the Vincent K.
the Vincent K.:.
McMahon Irrevocable
McMahon Irrevocable Trust U/T/A dtd.
Trust U/T/A June
dtd. June :.
24,
24, 2004, as Trustee
2004, as Trustee of
of the Vincent K.
the Vincent K. ::
McMahon 2008
McMahon 2008 Irrevocable Trust U/T/A
Irrevocable Trust U/T/A dtd.::
dtd.
December
December 23,
23, 2008,
2008, and as Special
and as Special Trustee
Trustee of:•
of
:
the Vincent K.
the Vincent McMahon 2013
K. McMahon 2013 Irrev. Trust
Irrev. Trust :.
U/A
U/A dtd.
dtd. December
December 5,5, 2013, and as
2013, and as Trustee
Trustee of:
of
Certain
Certain Other
Other Unnamed McMahon Family
Unnamed McMahon Family ::
Trusts, and
Trusts, and Controlling Shareholder of
Controlling Shareholder of WWE,
WWE, :•
:
Defendants-Appellees. :•
Defendants-Appellees.
:

EVAN
EVAN SINGLETON and VITO
SINGLETON and VITO LOGRASSO,
LOGRASSO, :: No. 18-3328
No. 18-3328
:
:
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, ::.
:
vs.
vs. :
:
WORLD
WORLD WRESTLING
WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT,
ENTERTAINMENT, :
:
INC.,
INC., :
:
Defendant-Appellee.
Defendant-Appellee. :

KONSTANTINE
KONSTANTINE W.
W. KYROS and KYROS
KYROS and KYROS :: No. 18-3330
No. 18-3330
:
LAW
LAW OFFICES,
OFFICES, P.C.,
P.C., :
:
Appellants, ::
Appellants,
:
vs.
vs. :
:
:
WORLD
WORLD WRESTLING
WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT,
ENTERTAINMENT, :
INC. and VINCENT
INC. and VINCENT K. McMAHON,
K. McMAHON, :
:
Appellees. :
Appellees.

4
Case 18-3278, Document 125, 12/14/2018, 2455314, Page5 of 14

REPLY
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS
MOTIONS TO AMEND CAPTIONS
TO AMEND CAPTIONS

Defendants-Appellees
Defendants-Appellees World
World Wrestling
Wrestling Entertainment,
Entertainment, Inc.
Inc.

(“WWE”)
("WWE") and
and Vincent
Vincent K.
K. McMahon
McMahon (“McMahon”)
("McMahon") (collectively,
(collectively,

“Appellees”) submit
"Appellees") submit this
this reply brief in
reply brief in support
support of
of their
their motions to amend
motions to amend

the captions in
the captions in the above-referenced appeals
the above-referenced appeals filed
filed by
by Plaintiffs-
Plaintiffs-

Appellants ("Appellants").1
Appellants (“Appellants”).1

ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT

I.
I. Appellants’ Opposition
Appellants' Opposition Is
Is Based On A
Based On A False Assumption.
False Assumption.

Appellants’ opposition
Appellants' is based
opposition is based on
on the
the false
false assumption
assumption that the
that the

above-referenced
above-referenced appeals
appeals have been consolidated.
have been consolidated.

Appellants filed
Appellants filed seven appeals.
separate appeals.
seven separate This Court
This Court has
has not
not

entered any order


entered any order consolidating
consolidating the appeals—a requirement
the appeals—a for
requirement for

consolidation under
consolidation under the
the rules.
rules. See Fed.
See R. App.
Fed. R. App. P.
P. 3(b),
3(b), advisory
advisory

committee’s note
committee's to 1998
note to 1998 Amendment
Amendment (Rule
(Rule 3(b) “requires court
3(b) "requires court action
action

to
to join appeals after
join appeals after separate
separate notices
notices of
of appeal
appeal have been filed").
have been filed”). Nor
Nor

can this
can this Court
Court enter a consolidation
enter a consolidation order because it
order because it lacks
lacks jurisdiction
jurisdiction

over
over six of the
six of the seven appeals that
seven appeals that have been filed.
have been filed. WWE
WWE has
has moved to
moved to

Appellees
1 Appellees
1 are filing
are filing a
a combined
combined reply brief in
reply brief in support
support of
of their
their
motions
motions to amend the
to amend captions for
the captions for these
these appeals
appeals because
because the
the arguments
arguments
that Appellants have
that Appellants have made
made inin opposition
opposition to
to the
the motions are the
motions are the same.
same.

5
5
Case 18-3278, Document 125, 12/14/2018, 2455314, Page6 of 14

dismiss
dismiss the
the untimely appeals filed
untimely appeals filed in
in the
the Haynes,
Haynes, McCullough,
McCullough, Frazier,
Frazier,

and
and Singleton cases for
Singleton cases for lack
lack of appellate jurisdiction.
of appellate Appellees also
jurisdiction.22 Appellees also

have
have moved
moved to
to dismiss
dismiss the
the premature
premature appeals
appeals of
of the sanctions orders
the sanctions orders

entered
entered against Attorney Kyros
against Attorney and his
Kyros and law firm
his law for lack
firm for lack of
of appellate
appellate

jurisdiction. Because this


jurisdiction.33 Because this Court lacks jurisdiction
Court lacks over those
jurisdiction over appeals,
those appeals,

it has
it has no
no authority to consolidate
authority to consolidate them. See Fed.
them.44 See Fed. R. App. P.
R. App. 3(b)(2)
P. 3(b)(2)

(court
(court may
may order consolidation only
order consolidation if parties
only if parties have filed "timely
have filed “timely notices
notices

of appeal”) (emphasis
of appeal") (emphasis added);
added); United
United States
States v. Wash., 573
v. Wash., 573 F.2d 1121,
F.2d 1121,

1123 (9th
1123 (9th Cir. 1978) (“each
Cir. 1978) ("each of
of the
the matters
matters to be consolidated
to be consolidated must be
must be

within the
within the jurisdiction
jurisdiction of
of the court” and
the court" “we cannot
and "we cannot inject
inject the
the issue into
issue into

2
2 As detailed
As in WWE’s
detailed in WWE's motions
motions toto dismiss,
dismiss, those appeals were
those appeals were
untimely
untimely under
under Hall
Hall v.
v. Hall, 138 S.
Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118 (2018)
Ct. 1118 because Appellants
(2018) because Appellants
failed to
failed to file
file timely
timely notices
notices of
of appeal from the
appeal from final decisions
the final decisions entered in
entered in
those cases. See
those cases. See Case
Case No. 18-3278 (Doc.
No. 18-3278 (Doc. No.
No. 53);
53); Case
Case No. 18-3332 (Doc.
No. 18-3332 (Doc.
No.
No. 50);
50); Case
Case No. 18-3325 (Doc.
No. 18-3325 (Doc. No.
No. 49);
49); Case
Case No. 27); Case
No. 27); Case No. 18-3328
No. 18-3328
(Doc.
(Doc. No.
No. 37).
37).
3
3As detailed
As in Appellees'
detailed in Appellees’ motions
motions to
to dismiss, those appeals
dismiss, those appeals were
were
premature
premature under controlling precedent
under controlling because the
precedent because the amount
amount ofof the
the
sanctions
sanctions has
has not
not yet been fixed
yet been fixed by
by the
the District
District Court. See Case
Court. See Case No. 18-
No. 18-
3326 (Doc. No.
3326 (Doc. No. 31);
31); Case
Case No. 18-3330 (Doc.
No. 18-3330 (Doc. No. 28).
No. 28).
4
4 If Appellants
If Appellants were
were correct
correct that
that these
these appeals are consolidated,
appeals are consolidated,
then Appellants would
then Appellants would only
only be
be entitled to file
entitled to file a single brief
a single brief for
for all
all seven
seven
appeals,
appeals, andand the briefing schedule
the briefing schedule for
for all
all seven appeals would
seven appeals would bebe stayed
stayed
until Appellees’ motions
until Appellees' motions to
to dismiss were decided.
dismiss were decided. SeeSee Second
Second Circuit
Circuit
Local
Local Rule
Rule 31.2(a)(3)
31.2(a)(3) (stating that the
(stating that the filing
filing of
of aa dispositive
dispositive motion
motion
“tolls the
"tolls the time
time periods
periods set
set forth in this
forth in this rule
rule [for briefing] until
[for briefing] until the
the
motion
motion is is determined.”).
determined.").

6
6
Case 18-3278, Document 125, 12/14/2018, 2455314, Page7 of 14

those other cases


those other cases by
by the
the device
device of
of ordering consolidation when
ordering consolidation when the
the

appeal in question
appeal in contains a
question contains a fatal
fatal jurisdictional
jurisdictional defect”).
defect").

II.
II. Appellants’ Position
Appellants' Position Is
Is Contrary
Contrary To
To Controlling Supreme
Controlling Supreme
Court
Court Precedent.
Precedent.

Appellants’ position
Appellants' is also
position is contrary to
also contrary controlling Supreme
to controlling Supreme Court
Court

precedent
precedent holding
holding these appeals must
these appeals be considered
must be considered separately.
separately.

In
In Hall
Hall v.
v. Hall, 138 S.
Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118 (2018),
Ct. 1118 (2018), the
the Supreme
Supreme Court
Court held
held

that
that each constituent case
each constituent case in an action
in an consolidated before
action consolidated before the
the District
District

Court “remained independent


Court "remained independent when
when it
it came
came to
to judgments
judgments and appeals”
and appeals"

and
and must be considered
must be considered separately
separately "on
“on appeal
appeal to ascertain jurisdiction
to ascertain jurisdiction

and
and to
to decide its disposition.”
decide its disposition." Id. at 1125,
Id. at 1125, 1128,
1128, 1130-31.
1130-31.

The
The Supreme
Supreme Court
Court expressly
expressly rejected Appellants’ argument
rejected Appellants' that
argument that

cases should
cases should be
be treated
treated as consolidated on
as consolidated appeal merely
on appeal because they
merely because they

were consolidated
were consolidated in
in the
the District
District Court. Although the
Court. Although the Supreme
Supreme Court
Court

noted
noted district courts have
district courts have discretion
discretion to consolidate cases
to consolidate cases in
in appropriate
appropriate

circumstances, it
circumstances, it held “constituent cases
held "constituent cases retain their separate
retain their identities
separate identities

at least to
at least the extent
to the extent that
that a
a final
final decision
decision in
in one is immediately
one is immediately

appealable by the
appealable by the losing
losing party” and "[o]ne
party" and “[o]ne of
of multiple cases consolidated
multiple cases consolidated

under the Rule


under the Rule retains its independent
retains its independent character,
character, at
at least
least to
to the
the extent
extent

that it is
that it is appealable when finally
appealable when finally resolved.”
resolved." Id. at 1125,
Id. at 1125, 1131
1131 (internal
(internal

7
7
Case 18-3278, Document 125, 12/14/2018, 2455314, Page8 of 14

quotation
quotation marks and citation
marks and citation omitted). Hall therefore
omitted). Hall therefore holds that each
holds that each

constituent case
constituent case retains its separate
retains its separate identity
identity for
for purposes
purposes of appeal.
of appeal.

Appellants’ claim
Appellants' claim that
that this
this Court
Court previously found that
previously found that these
these

cases were
cases were consolidated
consolidated on
on appeal
appeal in
in its
its decision in McCullough
decision in McCullough v.
v.

World
World Wrestling
Wrestling Entertainment,
Entertainment, Inc., 838 F.3d
Inc., 838 F.3d 210 (2d Cir.
210 (2d 2016) is
Cir. 2016) is

completely unfounded.
completely Although the
unfounded. Although the Court in McCullough
Court in noted that
McCullough noted that

these cases had


these cases been consolidated
had been consolidated in
in the
the trial it did
court, it
trial court, did not address
not address

whether the
whether the cases
cases had
had been consolidated on
been consolidated appeal. In
on appeal. any event,
In any event, this
this

Court’s
Court's holding in McCullough
holding in that appeals
McCullough that appeals of
of some cases were
some cases were

premature while other


premature while cases consolidated
other cases consolidated with them remained
with them remained pending
pending

in the
in the trial court was
trial court was effectively
effectively overruled by the
overruled by the Supreme
Supreme Court’s
Court's

decision in Hall.
decision in Accordingly, this
Hall. Accordingly, this Court
Court must follow the
must follow intervening
the intervening

decision in Hall,
decision in which requires
Hall, which requires each case to
each case be treated
to be separately on
treated separately on

appeal.
appeal. See
See United
United States
States v. Plugh, 648
v. Plugh, 648 F.3d 118, 123-24
F.3d 118, 123-24 (2d
(2d Cir.
Cir. 2011)
2011)

(stating that law


(stating that law of
of the case does
the case does not
not apply “where there
apply "where there has been an
has been an

intervening Supreme
intervening Supreme Court
Court decision
decision that
that casts
casts doubt on our
doubt on our controlling
controlling

precedent”) (internal quotation


precedent") (internal quotation marks
marks and
and citation
citation omitted);
omitted); United
United

States ex rel.
States ex rel. Fein
Fein v. Deegan, 410
v. Deegan, 410 F.2d 13, 22
F.2d 13, 22 (2d
(2d Cir. 1969) (declaring
Cir. 1969) (declaring

8
8
Case 18-3278, Document 125, 12/14/2018, 2455314, Page9 of 14

that
that this
this Court is bound
Court is by the
bound by the Supreme
Supreme Court’s
Court's decisions “until such
decisions "until such

time
time as
as the
the Court informs us
Court informs us that we are
that we are not”).
not").

III. Appellants’ Opposition


III. Appellants' Opposition Contradicts Their Prior
Contradicts Their Prior Filings
Filings In
In
These Appeals.
These Appeals.

Appellants’ opposition
Appellants' also contradicts
opposition also contradicts their
their position
position regarding
regarding the
the

case captions
case captions in
in their
their prior filings in
prior filings in these appeals. Appellants
these appeals. Appellants filed
filed

separate notices
separate of appeal
notices of appeal for
for each
each individual
individual case
case and agreed that
and agreed only
that only

the
the parties
parties to
to each individual case
each individual case should
should be included in
be included in the caption for
the caption for

the appeal of
the appeal of that
that case.
case.

•• Haynes
Haynes v. v. World
World Wrestling
Wrestling Entertainment,
Entertainment, Inc.Inc. (No.
(No. 18-3278):
18-3278):
The
The Notice
Notice of Appeal identified
of Appeal identified William Albert Haynes
William Albert Haynes III as the
III as the only
only
Appellant to
Appellant this appeal.
to this appeal. (Doc.
(Doc. No. 1.) The
No. 1.) Acknowledgement and
The Acknowledgement and
Appearance Form
Appearance Form stated
stated that
that the caption was
the caption was "incorrect"
“incorrect” and
and should
should
reflect
reflect that the only
that the only parties to the
parties to appeal are
the appeal are Appellant
Appellant Haynes
Haynes andand
Appellee WWE.
Appellee (Doc. No.
WWE. (Doc. 22.) The
No. 22.) caption included
The caption included on the Form
on the Form CC
also
also indicated
indicated that
that the only parties
the only parties to the appeal
to the appeal are
are Appellant
Appellant
Haynes and Appellee
Haynes and Appellee WWE. (Doc. No.
WWE. (Doc. No. 20.)
20.)

•• McCullough
McCullough et et al. v. World
al. v. World Wrestling
Wrestling Entertainment,
Entertainment, Inc. Inc. (No.
(No.
18-3322):
18-3322): The The Notice
Notice of Appeal identified
of Appeal identified Russ
Russ McCullough,
McCullough, RyanRyan
Sakoda, and Matthew
Sakoda, and Matthew Wiese as the
Wiese as only Appellants
the only Appellants toto this
this appeal.
appeal.
(Doc.
(Doc. No. 1.) The
No. 1.) The Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement and and Appearance
Appearance FormForm stated
stated
that the caption
that the caption was
was "incorrect"
“incorrect” and
and should
should reflect
reflect that
that the
the only
only
parties to the
parties to appeal are
the appeal are Appellants
Appellants McCullough,
McCullough, Sakoda,
Sakoda, and
and Wiese
Wiese
and Appellee WWE.
and Appellee WWE. (Doc.
(Doc. No. 18.) The
No. 18.) The caption
caption included
included onon the
the
Form
Form C also indicated
C also indicated that
that the only parties
the only to the
parties to the appeal
appeal are
are
Appellants McCullough,
Appellants McCullough, Sakoda, and Wiese
Sakoda, and and Appellee
Wiese and Appellee WWE.
WWE.
(Doc.
(Doc. No. 13.)
No. 13.)

9
9
Case 18-3278, Document 125, 12/14/2018, 2455314, Page10 of 14

•• Frazier
Frazier v.v. World
World Wrestling
Wrestling Entertainment,
Entertainment, Inc.Inc. (No.
(No. 18-3325):
18-3325):
The Notice
The of Appeal
Notice of Appeal identified
identified Cassandra
Cassandra Frazier
Frazier as
as the
the only
only
Appellant to
Appellant this appeal.
to this appeal. (Doc.
(Doc. No. 1.) The
No. 1.) Acknowledgement and
The Acknowledgement and
Appearance Form
Appearance Form stated
stated that
that the caption was
the caption was "incorrect"
“incorrect” and
and should
should
reflect
reflect that
that the
the only
only parties
parties to the appeal
to the appeal are Appellant Frazier
are Appellant and
Frazier and
Appellee WWE.
Appellee (Doc. No.
WWE. (Doc. 16.) The
No. 16.) caption included
The caption included on the Form
on the Form CC
also indicated
also indicated that
that the only parties
the only parties to the appeal
to the appeal are
are Appellant
Appellant
Frazier
Frazier and Appellee WWE.
and Appellee WWE. (Doc.
(Doc. No. 12.)
No. 12.)

•• Kyros
Kyros etet al.
al. v.
v. World
World Wrestling
Wrestling Entertainment,
Entertainment, Inc. Inc. (No.
(No. 18-
18-
3326): The Notice
3326): The Notice of Appeal identified
of Appeal identified Konstantine
Konstantine Kyros
Kyros and
and Kyros
Kyros
Law
Law Offices
Offices P.C. as the
P.C. as only Appellants
the only Appellants to
to this appeal. (Doc.
this appeal. (Doc. No. 1.)
No. 1.)
The Acknowledgement
The Acknowledgement and and Appearance
Appearance Form stated that
Form stated that the caption
the caption
was "incorrect"
was “incorrect” and
and should
should reflect
reflect that the parties
that the to this
parties to this appeal
appeal are
are
Appellants Kyros
Appellants and his
Kyros and his Law
Law Offices and Appellee
Offices and Appellee WWE.
WWE. (Doc.
(Doc. No.
No.
19.) The
19.) caption included
The caption included onon the
the Form
Form C also indicates
C also indicates that
that the
the
parties
parties to this appeal
to this appeal are
are Appellants
Appellants Kyros and his
Kyros and his Law
Law Offices
Offices and
and
Appellee WWE.
Appellee WWE. (Doc.
(Doc. No. 16.)
No. 16.)

•• Laurinaitis
Laurinaitis et et al.
al. v.
v. World
World Wrestling
Wrestling Entertainment,
Entertainment, Inc.,Inc., et
et al.
al.
(No.
(No. 18-3327):
18-3327): The The Notice
Notice of Appeal identified
of Appeal identified the
the 60 listed
60 listed
Appellants as
Appellants as the only Appellants
the only Appellants toto this appeal. (Doc.
this appeal. (Doc. No. 1.) The
No. 1.) The
Acknowledgement and
Acknowledgement Appearance Form
and Appearance stated that
Form stated that the caption was
the caption was
“incorrect” and
"incorrect" and should
should reflect
reflect that the only
that the only parties
parties to the appeal
to the appeal are
are
the
the 60
60 listed Appellants and
listed Appellants and Appellees
Appellees WWE
WWE and and McMahon.
McMahon. (Doc.(Doc.
No.
No. 22.) The caption
22.) The caption included
included onon the
the Form
Form C also indicated
C also indicated that
that the
the
only
only parties to the
parties to the appeal
appeal areare the
the 60 Appellants and
60 Appellants and Appellees
Appellees WWE
WWE
and McMahon.
and McMahon. (Doc.
(Doc. No. 17.)
No. 17.)

•• Singleton
Singleton etet al. v. World
al. v. World Wrestling
Wrestling Entertainment,
Entertainment, Inc.Inc. (No.
(No. 18-
18-
3328): The Notice
3328): The of Appeal
Notice of Appeal identified
identified Evan
Evan Singleton
Singleton and Vito
and Vito
LoGrasso
LoGrasso asas the only Appellants
the only Appellants to to this appeal. (Doc.
this appeal. (Doc. No. 1.) The
No. 1.) The
Acknowledgement and
Acknowledgement Appearance Form
and Appearance stated that
Form stated that the caption was
the caption was
“incorrect” and
"incorrect" and should
should reflect
reflect that the only
that the only parties
parties to the appeal
to the appeal are
are
Appellants Singleton
Appellants and LoGrasso
Singleton and LoGrasso andand Appellee
Appellee WWE.
WWE. (Doc.
(Doc. No.
No.
24.)
24.) The caption included
The caption included on
on the
the Form
Form C C also indicated that
also indicated the only
that the only
parties to the
parties to the appeal
appeal are
are Appellants
Appellants Singleton and LoGrasso
Singleton and LoGrasso and
and
Appellee WWE.
Appellee WWE. (Doc.
(Doc. No. 19.)
No. 19.)
10
10
Case 18-3278, Document 125, 12/14/2018, 2455314, Page11 of 14

•• Kyros
Kyros etet al.
al. v.
v. World
World Wrestling
Wrestling Entertainment,
Entertainment, Inc.Inc. et
et al.
al. (No.
(No.
18-3330): The
18-3330): The Notice
Notice of Appeal identified
of Appeal identified Konstantine
Konstantine Kyros and
Kyros and
Kyros
Kyros Law
Law Offices
Offices P.C. as the
P.C. as the only
only Appellants
Appellants to this appeal.
to this appeal. (Doc.
(Doc.
No. 1.) The
No. 1.) The Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement and Appearance Form
and Appearance Form stated
stated that
that the
the
caption was
caption was "incorrect"
“incorrect” and
and should
should reflect
reflect that
that the
the parties
parties to the
to the
appeal are Appellants
appeal are Appellants Kyros and his
Kyros and his Law
Law Offices and Appellees
Offices and Appellees
WWE
WWE and and McMahon.
McMahon. (Doc.(Doc. No. 15.) The
No. 15.) caption included
The caption included on
on the
the
Form
Form C also indicated
C also indicated that
that the
the parties
parties to
to the appeal are
the appeal are Appellants
Appellants
Kyros and his
Kyros and his Law
Law Offices and Appellees
Offices and Appellees WWE and McMahon.
WWE and McMahon. (Doc.
(Doc.
No. 12.)
No. 12.)

Appellants only
Appellants only changed
changed their
their position
position regarding
regarding the appropriate
the appropriate

captions after
captions Appellees filed
after Appellees filed their
their motions to dismiss
motions to and Appellants
dismiss and Appellants

learned about
learned about the consequences of
the consequences the Hall
of the Hall decision
decision on their appeals.5
on their appeals.5

CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION

For the reasons


For the set forth
reasons set forth above
above and
and in
in Appellees'
Appellees’ motions to
motions to

amend
amend the
the case captions, the
case captions, the Court
Court should
should direct the Clerk
direct the Clerk to amend
to amend

the captions for


the captions for the appeals to
the appeals conform to
to conform to the captions in
the captions Appellees’
in Appellees'

motions
motions and
and to
to include
include only
only the
the parties
parties to
to each
each of
of the separate appeals.
the separate appeals.

5
5Appellants’ arguments
Appellants' arguments regarding
regarding the consequences of
the consequences of the
the Hall
Hall
decision in their
decision in their opposition amount to
opposition amount an impermissible
to an impermissible surreply
surreply to
to
Appellees’ motions
Appellees' motions to
to dismiss. Appellants’ arguments
dismiss. Appellants' arguments lack
lack merit for the
merit for the
reasons
reasons stated in Appellees'
stated in Appellees’ motions and reply
motions and briefs.
reply briefs.
11
11
Case 18-3278, Document 125, 12/14/2018, 2455314, Page12 of 14

December
December 14,
14, 2018
2018 Respectfully
Respectfully submitted,
submitted,

/s/
/s / Jerry
Jerry S.
S. McDevitt
McDevitt
Jerry S.
Jerry S. McDevitt
McDevitt
Curtis
Curtis B.
B. Krasik
Krasik
K&L GATES LLP
K&L GATES LLP
K&L
K&L Gates
Gates Center
Center
210
210 Sixth Avenue
Sixth Avenue
Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA
PA 15222
15222
(412)
(412) 355-6500
355-6500

David
David R.
R. Fine
Fine
K&L GATES LLP
K&L GATES LLP
17 North
17 North Second
Second St., 18th Fl.
St., 18th Fl.
Harrisburg,
Harrisburg, PA
PA 17101
17101
(717)
(717) 231-4500
231-4500

Jeffrey P.
Jeffrey Mueller
P. Mueller
DAY
DAY PITNEY
PITNEY LLPLLP
242 Trumbull Street
242 Trumbull Street
Hartford,
Hartford, CT
CT 06103
06103
(860)
(860) 275-0100
275-0100

Counsel
Counsel for Appellees World
for Appellees World Wrestling
Wrestling Entertainment,
Entertainment, Inc.
Inc.
and Vincent
and K. McMahon
Vincent K McMahon

12
12
Case 18-3278, Document 125, 12/14/2018, 2455314, Page13 of 14

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

1.
1. This brief complies
This brief complies with
with the word limit
the word limit requirements
requirements of
of Fed.
Fed.

R. App. P.
R. App. 27(d)(2)(C) because
P. 27(d)(2)(C) because it
it contains
contains 1,685 words, excluding
1,685 words, excluding the
the

parts
parts of
of the brief exempted
the brief by Fed.
exempted by Fed. R. App. P.
R. App. P. 32(f).
32(f).

2.
2. This brief complies
This brief complies with
with the
the type-face
type-face requirements
requirements of
of Fed.
Fed.

R. App. P.
R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the
32(a)(5) and the type-style
type-style requirements
requirements of
of Fed.
Fed. R. App. P.
R. App. P.

32(a)(6)
32(a)(6) because
because this brief has
this brief been prepared
has been in a
prepared in a proportionally
proportionally spaced
spaced

typeface
typeface using Microsoft Word
using Microsoft Word in 14-point Century
in 14-point Century Schoolbook font.
Schoolbook font.

/s/
/s / Jeffrey P. Mueller
Jeffrey P. Mueller
Jeffrey P.
Jeffrey Mueller
P. Mueller

13
13
Case 18-3278, Document 125, 12/14/2018, 2455314, Page14 of 14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

II certify
certify that,
that, on
on December 14, 2018,
December 14, 2018, II filed
filed the foregoing with
the foregoing with the
the

Court’s
Court's ECF
ECF system
system such
such that all counsel
that all counsel will
will receive service
receive service

automatically.
automatically.

/s/
/s / Jeffrey P. Mueller
Jeffrey P. Mueller
Jeffrey P.
Jeffrey Mueller
P. Mueller

14
14