IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNTITED STATES
`No. 17-6375
`Donchev et. al. v. DeSimone et.al.
`CERTIFICATION OF GOOD FAITH FILING
`by FATH DONCHEVA AS REQUIRED BY RULE 44 of:
`
`PETITIONERS request for REHEARING
`of the Jan. 8, 2018 GENERAL DENIAL
`of the Petition for an Extraordinary WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`and Request for GVR grant, vacate and remand,
`in accordance with intervening 2017 US Supreme Court Law
`established in Docket 15-1500 that substantially affects this case
`
`This certification and Petition for Rehearing briefly and distinctly states the grounds for
`Rehearing for a Writ and grounds supporting that the Writ requested and (GVR)
`Grant,Vacate and Remand must be granted in accordance with law established by the US
`Supreme Court in 2017 and that effects this case an requires GVR. The substantial
`ground include to be consistent with Public Policy, the law, the constitution, plaintiffs
`rights and the to be consistent with the law established in the 2017 intervening in the
`US Supreme Court case Lewis v. Clark Docket 15-1500, established controlling law and
`substantially affects this case. In Lewis the US Supreme Court established law that
`immunity to suit of one entity cannot be shared by a separate entity, sued in his
`individual capacity, who is not entitled to immunity, to allow immunity to be extended
`where it is not allowed violates Public Policy, the law and established law.
`
`The grounds for this Petition for Rehearing the Writ and GVR as allowed in rule 44 are
`limited to the intervening circumstances of substantial or controlling effect or to other
`substantial grounds not previously presented; as written in our
`Petition for Rehearing and supported by the appendixes A-B-C and D submitted with it.
`The appendixes include the 2017 Established US Supreme Court law, and the facts of this
`case, showing that the law established in 2017 must be applied to this case.
`
`This petition is submitted in accordance with rule 44 and direction from the US Supreme
`Court Clerk, M. Blalock. As instructed the Petition is corrected. The supporting
`attachments are each identified as Appendixes as instructed. The Petition for rehearing
`is submitted in accordance with Rule 33.2(b) which allows 15 pages. Our Petition is
`13 pages total, the first two of those 13 pages are a concise brief statement distinctly
`stating ground of why Rehearing and GVR must be granted in light of the 2017
`Established case law in US Supreme Court Docket 15-1500 that effects this case and
`requires that it must be applied to this case, and require GVR in this case also.
`
`I certify, that all statements made by me here-in are true and that I may be subject to
`punishrrent, if they are intentionally are untrue.
`- 7-
`Faith Doncheva
`( Pro-se as Executrix for all four plaintiffs and as Individual) In Forma Pauperis
`Box 8134, Chandler, AZ 85246 856-261-9640
`Metcho233@gmai1.com
`
`

`

`QESTION 1
`Whether or not a court can allow an immunity to suit of one entity (a corporate employer who was not
`the defendant) to be shared by a separate entity not entitled to immunity who was the defendant sued
`in his individual capacity as homeowner (who as homeowner individually had statutory duties in a
`Construction Permit Homeowner Certification for safety on his property that he breached)
`after ajury trial and after the jury found the homeowner individually had duties and was negligent ?
`(See WC 34:15-40pg 11, Lyons v Barretc(1982)Pg 12, Lewis v, Clarke(2017)Pg. 14)
`In a 2017 intervening US Supreme Court established law Docket 15-1500
`the US Supreme Court established law that is controlling and substantially affects this
`case, establishing law that immunity of one entity cannot be shared by a separate entity,
`who is sued for damages caused by negligence in his individual capacity.
`
`QUESTION 2
`Whether or not on Oct. 14, 2015 trial court assignment judge can find plaintiffs motions or
`reconsideration request seeking justice are frivolous without complying with NJSA 15-59 (Pg1 1) and
`court rules and after the 2011 jury unanimously determined all genuine issues of fact in plaintiffs favor and
`after the trial court judge on May 15, 2015 granted leave to appeal in the interest ofjustice, after he again
`determined plaintiffs have not done anything in had faith, that plaintiffs have a good cause, a right
`to seek justice and to a jury trial on all claims and to the unanimous 2011 jury verdict and judgment
`against the homeowner that the trial judge again found is supported by evidence, the Construction
`Permit Homeowner Certification, admissions of the homeowner and legitimate inferences therefrom?
`
`QUESTION 3
`Whether or not the court applied the laws and court rules that the laws state must be applied to
`defendant and his counsels frivolous, criminal, unbecoming actions, and contempt of court, when the
`evidence and records show they pursued frivolous defenses for years that they admitted in 2006 were
`unsupported, that violate Court rules NJCR 1:4-8, WC Law 34:15-57.2, NJSA 15-59 and standards
`of the court by the unheconiing criminal behavior of misrepresenting the status of an employee and
`material facts and continuing for years frivolous defenses that they knew and admitted in 2006 were not
`supported, for no other reason but to ohstruct justice and cause delay, harm and contempt of court?
`
`QUESTION 4
`Whether or not any of plaintiffs claims against the homeowner can be involuntarily dismiss or summary
`judgment granted to the homeowner after the jury determined in 2011 that he was negligent and the trial
`judge found there is evidence and legitimate inferences therefrom that could and did lead to a judgment
`in plaintiffs favor and found the 2011 jury verdict is supported?
`
`111
`
`

`

`CONSISE LETTER SUMMARY WHY REHEARING a Writ and GYR. must be granted
`(attached pages 2-13 with more detail and laws)
`On Jan. 8, 2018 our Petition for a Writ to the Lower Courts was denied in a General Denial, (App. A-36) when
`it should not have been because the question of law that we requested to be determined by the US Supreme Court
`affects Public Policy, all Workers and Citizens and all Corporations in the United States and all Employers or
`employees, including the United States and each State itself: The Lower courts opinions or orders cannot be
`allowed to stand, they violate law and would allow construction to be done unlawfully without proper permits and
`not in accordance with law, then not allow damages for injury and death to be recovered caused by the unlawful
`negligent acts. The Question we asked the court to decide pertains to whether or not immunity to suit of a
`corporation can be shared by entities sued in their individual capacity as homeowners. The trial Court in this case
`found the homeowner is not immune to suit, and defendants counsel admitted in 2006 and at the201 1 jury trial
`that the homeowner is not the employer and does not share immunity to suit of the corporate employer and
`withdrew that defense at the jury trial. None the less, in a 2011 appeal defendants counsel falsely represented to the
`Appellate Court, that the Defendant was plaintiffs employer and therefore immune to Suit under Worker Comp
`Law. The 2012 Appellate wrote an opinion writing that the defendant was plaintifE employer, thus reversed a
`purported 2006 Sum. Jud. stating the employer was immune to suit. That was after a 2011 jury trial that found the
`homeowner negligent. The 2012 Appellate court wrote the opinion as though plaintiffs corporate employer and
`the homeowner are one and they are not. They are separate entities. The homeowner individually had duties as
`homeowner that he breached. He unlawfully commenced re-shingling his detached garage roof at his home
`without a permit update for.that work, without Zomplying with applicable laws that he certified to the Authorities
`he as homeowner would comply with, in a Construction Permit Homeowner Certification in Lieu of Oath, He
`negligently hired and failed to sufficiently warn the plaintiff of the hazard he as homeowner knew existed when he
`instructed the employee of DND Inc. who lie knew was not a roofer to go on his roof to strip shingles. The
`homeowner admitted he himself knew his roof had been leaking for months and would not be safe to walk on,
`yet instructed plaintiff to strip shingles. Within hours it collapsed and he fell through sustaining injuries that led to
`infection, sepsis and his death. The homeowner commenced re-shingling unlawfully, if he had complied with the
`applicable laws , that require a permit for the work in writing prior to commencing, require determination of
`integrity prior to commencing and require no employee be allowed to walk on a roof that will not support his
`weight, it would have prevented the roof collapse, Metodi's' injuries and death, and damages to him and his family.
`After the 2012 opinion was written for plaintiffs EMPLOYER, writing that "that defendant" was improperly
`denied summary judgment, plaintiffs returned to the trial court to have the court re-enter a clarified judgment
`against the homeowner to show it is specifically against the homeowner and to order a date for a jury trial on
`damages after death, BUT the trial judge thought that the 2012 opinion meant he had to grant Sum.Jud. to the
`defendant in this case, who is a separate entity. He granted leave to appeal, stating it is not what lie did, but what
`the 2012 Appellate Court did, but he did not comply with the law, or standards that even that 2012 opinion had
`written MUST BE COMPLIED WITH by the trial and appellate courts. Plaintiff; then filed an appeal in 2015
`REGARDING THE CORRECT DEFENDANT THE HOMEOWNER; but in 2017 the Appellate Court
`AGAIN wrote an opinion writing that the defendant was plaintiffs employer, and that they had already determined
`in 2012 that the employer was immune to suit, therefore, affirmed the improper 2015 orders or the trial court.
`Plaintiffs then appealed to the NJ Supreme Court, and they denied to review the case. That led to this Petition to
`the US Supreme Court for a Writ that must be granted. see NJ Supreme Court Lyons Case law (App.A-13) Page 1
`
`

`

`While plaintiffs Petitioners appeal in the State Court, and Petition for a Writ from the United States
`were pending being heard, the US Supreme Court established Law in Docket 15-1500 (App. A-4) on this
`same question of immunity, and that 2017 established law affects this case. Based on the law established
`in Docket 15-1500 Lewis" case law, GVR MUST be granted in this case also as it was in NLewis". The
`Corporate Employer and the Homeowner are separate entities that did not have the same duties, and it
`was the homeowner who was sued for his own individual negligence. As in Lewis", the employee of
`the tribe was sued individually for his own negligence and could not obtain immunity to suit of the
`tribe, the tribe was not the entity sued. That defendant in Lewis, as this defendant in this case was sued
`in as an individual. In this case further the jury ALREADY determined that the HOMEOWNER. WAS
`IND1VIDUALY negligent. Thus the court CANNOT grant Sum. Jud. or immunity to suit to the
`homeowner in this case, and must enter the verdict and judgment made by the 2011 jury for damages
`up to death, that they already determined, and must order a date for the jury to determine damages
`after death, that all four plaintiffs are entitled to under 41 UCS 1993.
`In 2017 Docket 15-1500 the Supreme Court of the United States established law that Immunity to Suit of one
`entity, cannot be shared by an entity not entitled to immunity, who is sued as an individual for damages caused by
`the entities own individual negligence. That Law established in that case Docket 15-1500 is controlling in this case,
`it substantially affects this case and Granted the Writ and GVR, , vacated the lower courts and remanded, for the
`same reasons we requested a Writ from the Supreme Court of the United States in our case. Thus to be consistent
`with the law and with the 2017 intervening case law established in the US Supreme Court Docket 15-1500 and to
`protect rights plaintifl rights in this case, as well as the tights of every person and corporation or entity in the
`United States, this request for Rehearing must be granted and the Writ and GVR that we the Plaintiffs/Petitioners
`request must be granted. The court cannot allow case law to be established that allows homeowners to conunence
`construction unlawfully, then try to gain immunity to suit that they are not entitled to.
`I have attached with this page 1 & 2 concise letter additional pages 3 thru 13 and Appendix A with laws and
`case laws included, explaining in more detail this case and why Rehearing, the Writ and GVR should and must be
`granted. in addition with permission, there are appendix B, C & D with Amicus Curiae Briefs for the United
`States, from William & Mary College of Law and from 44 Corporate and Criminal Law Professors supporting that
`Rehearing, the Writ and GVR must be granted in this case as it was granted in 2017 in Docket 15-1500. The
`homeowner and the Corporate employer ARE SEPARET ENTITES. All four Plaintiff have tights to recover
`damages under 42USC 1983 from the homeowner Dennis who the jury already determined was negligent, lithe
`homeowner Dennis had complied with the applicable laws enacted through the Constitution, Congress and the
`US Supreme Court itself, that were enacted to prevent hazards in construction and to protect the Safety, Health
`and Welfare of all people and employees, the roof would not have collapsed, plaintiff would not have fallen
`through or been injured or died The Construction Permit and Homeowner Certification (App. A- 11 12, 13, 14)
`showed it was Dennis the homeowner duty to comply with the laws and control the work at his home.
`The trial judge found the permit is what created a Genuine Issue of Fact and what led the jury to find the
`homeowner negligent. As Lewis said immunity cannot be shared and the NJ Lyons v. Barrett Supreme Court
`SAID Courts must protect workers and all peoples tights because it is consistent with the law.
`(:g'
`2- -
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Faith Doncheva
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Petitioner request Rehearing, for a Writ to be Granted & (GVR) pursuant to R 44 & 10
`the facts, law & the 2017 intervening controlling law established in Docket 15-1500.
`In 2017 while plaintiffs petition was pending, the US Supreme Court established law in docket
`15-I 500 "LEWIS" (App-A2)that is controlling law substantially affecting this case, it is intervening
`law & requires Rehearing, a Writ & GVR be granted in this case also. In "LEWIS" a Writ and
`GVR were granted regarding the same question in our petition."LEWIS" established law "that
`immunity to suit of one entity cannot be shared by,? separate entity not entitled to immunity".
`The appeal plaintiff/petitioners filed in 2015, was decided by lower courts contrary to law.
`In 2017 plaintiffs appealed postjury trial orders in our claims against homeowners individually.
`The 2012 appeal Del. Counsel frivolously filed was regarding a subject matter for Plaintiffs
`corporate employer DND Inc or DND's President in that capacity, but they were not defendants;
`there were no trial court orders regarding those entities, to be reversed in the 2012 appellate
`opinion regarding those entities. The homeowner had duties that he breached that were not
`duties of the corporation or of the corporations president. The trial judge wrote in hisJune 1,
`2011 decision, (App-A21-22) there were Genuine Issues; that there was no contract or any
`Construction Permit assigning responsibility to DND Inc. or DNIYs President, that the permit
`assigned all duties to the horneowne•r, that he signed he voluntarily acknowledged he assumed in
`the " Construction Permit Homeowner Certification in Lieu of Oath ''App-Ai1-14) The appellate
`court cannot state a homeowner can share immunity to suit of the plaintiffs corporate employer,
`as the US Supreme Court said in "LEWIS" & the NJ Supreme Lyons Court also said "1mm unity
`alone entity can't be shared be a different entity", "the homeowner and the corporate employer
`are separate entities " thus rehearing GVR and a Writ must be granted in this case directed to the
`lower courts to comply with established law, as was granted in LEWIS in 2017.
`(See WC Law 34:15-40, 34:15-69, 34:15-57 App.-AI, & "Lyons v Barrett" App-.A2, Lewis App-A4)
`JURJSTICTION
`Rehearing of petitionersjan. 8, 2018 denial (App.A36)S provided in RIO & 44(2), 42U5C1983
`WCLaw34: 15-40, the Constitution, & in the US Supreme Court intervening Law established in
`2017 in "LEWIS, Docket 15-1500 that is controlling in this case. In LEWIS a Writ and GVR
`were granted. The "LEWIS" case established law immunity is an important substantial
`question & cannot be shared by a separate entity not entitled to immunity". "LEWIS"
`substantially affects this case and is grounds in R44 supporting rehearing & that GVR must be
`granted in this case also, because the homeowner defendant in this case cannot share immunity
`of the separate entity, plaintiffs corporate employer. (App.-AI, WCL34:15-40). Amicus Briefs of
`United States, of William & Mary College of Law and of Corporate and Criminal Page 3
`
`

`

`Law Professors are filed with this rehearing request in Appendixes, B, C & D and evidence,
`the permit, laws and case laws in Appendix A also support granting rehearing, a Writ & GVR.
`Rule 44
`2. Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ.., shall be filed
`within 25 days after the date of the order of denial ..its grounds shall be.. intervening
`circumstances of substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds...
`Rehearing, _a WRIT and GVR. must be granted in accordance with
`intervening 2017 controlling established US Supreme Court Law
`The US. Supreme Court in "LEWIS" in 2017, said "the court reviewed immunity to suit on
`multiple occasions, in different conrexr' that allowing immunity to be shared by an entity
`where it would not reach, is against Public Policy & the law, & denies substantial rights to ajury
`trial. Due to law established in "Lewis" while this Petition was pending, that substantially affects
`this case, that law must be applied in this case,is substantial grounds supporting Rehearing, a Writ
`and GVR must be granted in this case, as in "LEWIS" to be consistent with law & rights.( App-A4)
`SUMMARY OF THE CASE
`The defendant homeowner of 149 Breakneck Rd. Sewell, NJ WAS NOT plaintiffs corporate
`employer DND Inc. .DND was located in Woodbury,NJ.. Plaintiff was strictly a framer, with
`DND, he was not a roofer. The Homeowner Dennis himself had a NJ Contractors license and
`certified to authorities in a 2002Construction Permit Homeowner Certification" his Statutory
`duties as homeowner, including for the condition of his property, supervising as homeowner and
`performing all construction in accordance with all applicable laws. The 2002 permit only
`allowed an addition to his main home. (App-All-14) On June 16, 2003, the homeowner Dennis,
`negligently hired knowing DND Inc. was not a roof contractor and knowing Plaintiff was not a
`roofer. On June 16 Dennis unlawfully commenced re-roofing his detached garage roof w/o a
`permit update for re-roofing, w/o complying with applicable laws and w/o sufficiently warning
`plaintiff of the hazard the homeowner admitted he knew existed. Although Dennis was the sole
`stockholder or president of DND Inc. he did not usually supervise DND's employee in that
`capacity, DND had foremen. On June 16th Metodi's foreman with DND Inc. was not at
`Dennis's home when Dennis admitted he was the only one, who as homeowner, instructed
`Metodi to go on his roof to strip shingles, even though Dennis admitted he knew Metodi was not
`a roofer, knew it was unlawful to commence w/o a permit for re-roofing, and admitted he
`Dennis himself knew his roof was leaking for months and was not safe to walk on and knew he
`as homeowner had duties as homeowner to comply with the law. Within hours the roof
`collapsed, Metodi fell through sustaining injuries that led to infection, sepsis & death, as written
`in the July 29,2010 trial judges order,(App.A15)the death cert. & plaintiffs doctors- affidavit. Page 4
`
`

`

`NJAC5:23-2.14-it is unlawful to commence construction without first obtaining in writing
`a permit for the work. TB Code for re-roofing & OSHA 1926.501 require (1) strength &
`structural integrity of the roof & roof structure shall be determined prior to commencing
`(2) the roof& roolstructure shall be capable of supporting weight that will be encountered during
`re-roofing & (3) no employee shall he allowed to walk on a roof that will not support his weight.
`NJAC 5:23 state its intent is to prevent hazards in construction and protect the safety health and
`welfare OF THE PEOPLE. (these laws were on poster boards at tria]).
`Pictures taken after the fall of the underside that was concealed by insulation showed the
`hazardous underside concealed by insulation that would have been discovered & prevented the
`roof collapse, injuries and death, if the Homeowner complied with laws that he certified he
`would comply with. Dennis admitted "he could have hired an architect to detennine integrity"
`or "Instructed to remove insulation and work on it from below" but admitted he did not. Dennis
`admitted "he knew his roof was leaking for months and wouldn 'the safe to walk on", but did
`nothing to prevent plaintiff from going on it, and instructed him to go on it, to strip shingles then
`it collapsed and plaintiff fell through sustaining multiple injuries that led to infection and death.
`On June 27, 2003, eleven days afterward, Dennis in writing obtained an update. He again wrote,
`"Principle Contractor-Homeowner-Person in Charge"& acknowledged his duties as homeowner.
`There was no contract or any permit assigning responsibility to DND Inc or DND's president in that
`capacity, ALL DUTIES including to comply with laws were DUTIES of Homeowner Dennis.(App.Al2)
`The permit & laws show the homeowner unlawfully commence re-roofing not in accordance with law.
`
`PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST HOMEOWNERS (App.-A17-19)
`June 5, 2005 counsel for plaintiffs Metodi & Faith filed this claim against the homeowners under
`42USC1983 & WCLaw 34:15-40 for damages caused by the homeowners individual negligence.
`Nov. 2006 Metodi died as a result of his fall through the roof. On Jan. 5, 2007 leave was granted
`to amend. Sept. 12, 2008 Wrongful Death & Survivorship Counts were added,with Faith &
`children Anton & Rocitsa plaintiffs in those counts.
`WC LAW 34:15-40. Where a third _person (the homeower) is liable to the employee or his dependents for
`an injury or death, 'the existence of a right of compensation from the employer (OND Inc) or insurance carrier
`under this statute SHALL NOT operate as a BAR to the action of the employee or his dependents,
`nor be regarded as establishing a measure of damage therein.
`
`42USC 1983 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,
`or usage, of any State or Territory.., subjects, -any citizen of the United States or
`other persons within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
`or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured
`in an action at law....
`Construction law & OSHA are laws created through the Constitution and the Courts to
`Page 5
`protect the safety and welfare OF THE PEOPLE, they are RIGHTS of everyone.
`
`

`

`PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT
`On Sept. 8, 2006, Jan, 5, 2007, May 2009, June 1, 2011 & May 15, 2015 after the 2011 jury
`trial, (App. A-20,21,22,33) the trial judge found the Construction Permit created a Genuine Issue &
`is what COULD and DID lead the jury to find homeowner Dennis individually negligent.
`The permit & Dennis's admission showed his duties that he breached. Dennis admitted he
`supervised the work as homeowner as he certified in his Homeowner certification he would,
`(App.A 11, 12,13,14)
`Def. Counsel continued frivolous defenses that " the homeowner was immune to suit" or
`"did not have dudes"even though he admitted in 2006 to the trial judge that immunity of the
`corporation does not extend to the homeowner, and the permit clearly showed the duties Dennis
`as homeowner had. The trial judge found Genuine Issues requiring trial, stating a jury could
`decide in plaintiffs favor, that Dennis had duties as homeowner and was negligent.
`On July 29, 2010 Judge Morgan acknowledged he overlooked evidence,& ordered by
`P.. 4:37-2(b) "plaintiffs Wrongful Death claims are re-instated & all claims shall proceed to ajuly
`triaL" (App.-A15; 16) OnJuly 7, 2011 the jury determined the homeowner Dennis was
`individually negligent & entered judgment against him for damages up to death.
`Damages after death remain to be determined; they only were not determined in 2011,
`because def counsel demanded plaintiffs doctor come in person to testify, the trial judge ordered
`he had to come in person because of Counsels demand, but when he came on July 5 & 6th,
`Del. Counsel then stated he was not prepared to question him about plaintiffs death.
`The judge stated to be fair, he allowed Negligence, Proximate Cause, Contributory Negligence
`& Damages Up To Death to be decided and stated IF the jury determined the was homeowner
`negligent, plaintiffs could apply for a date to determine Damages After Death.
`At trial Def. counsel "withdrew" the immunity defense pp.-3). He did not motion to
`dismiss plaintiff claims against the Homeowner before or after the Jury verdict. Def. Counsel
`explicitly explained to the jury that Plaintiffs corporate employer, DND Inc. or Dennis in his
`capacity as president of DND were not defendants, that these claims are against the homeowners
`Dennis individually, that plaintiffs had to show to their satisfaction that as homeowner Dennis
`individually had duties that he breached. (App. A-34)
`July 7, 2011 the jury determined, Dennis the homeowner was individually negligent, that
`his negligence was 100% the proximate cause of damages and determined damages up to Metodits
`death. judgment was entered June 8'h & re-entered on Sept. 6, 2011 with interest to date added
`totaling over $724,000. Plaintiffs economist testified to damages exceeding $1,700, 000.
`Page 6
`
`

`

`After trial, Plaintiffs motioned for a date to determine Damages After Death. Del. counsel
`cross-motioned for "Remititur ofthe Amount oftheJwy Verdict or in the Alternative a New
`Trial on All The Issues".
`Sept. 2011 The trial judge stated there is a basis for Damages after Death, but did not order a
`date yet to determine them. He denied Def motion stating "plaintiffs economist showed higher
`damages, there was no contrary evidence" & "the verdict & amount was supported therefore
`theres no reason for a new trial on issues the jury determined".
`The trial judges post jury trial order denying a new trial to the defendant homeowner and the
`judgment entered against the homeowner were not reviewed or reversed by the 2012 Appellate
`Court, the opinion stated in the footnotes, they did not review the post jury trial orders or
`judgment (THAT WERE AGAINST THE HOMEOWNER). That 2012 opinion found that
`THAT defendant plaintiffs employer was improperly denied Sum. Jud. in 2006 or 2007.
`The post jury trial orders or the jury verdict or judgment that was not reviewed or reversed in
`the 2012 appeal ARE against the HOMEOWNER Individually. (App. A-35)
`DEFENDANTS 2012 APPEAL F1UVILOUSLY WRITING IN
`his NOTICE OF APPEAL that 'DEFENDANT WAS PLAINTIFFS EMPLOYER"
`In Sepx. 2011 Del. counsel frivolously wrote in his 2011/2012 Notice of Appeal " defendant
`was plaintiffs employer" The 2012 Per Curium opinion wrote: "defendant was plaintiffs
`employer" & "that 2006 and 2007 Sum. Jud.s & the Postjuzy trial orders were appealed."
`The footnotes on the last two pages have written: "they did not review post trial orders or
`the judgment" (App.A35)1t wrote "they reviewed the 2006 and 2007 Su:n.Jud. DE NOVO,
`deriving facts from the 2006 Sum. Jud. Record " (NOT from the trial court record,App.A35) that:
`"DND "s President did not unusually supervise DND's Projects" thus "They agreed 2006 or
`2007 Sum. Jud.s were improperly denied to that defendant" because Employers are immune to
`Suit under WC Law". (but there was no Sum. Jud.s denied to DND Inc or DNDs president in
`that capacity, to be reversed, and the jury verdict is against the separate entity the homeowner.)
`The 2012 opinion ALSO had written "the Sum. Jud, standard must be complied with
`by trial and appellate courts, when there are Genuine Issues Sum, Jud. MUST be
`DENIED" and IF plaintiffs showed the INDEPENDANT Contractor Doctrine did not
`apply plaintiffs claims against the homeowner could proceed. BUT the court lower courts
`did not comply with the standards or law. The 2012 opinion cited ACCARDI caselaw:
`"Homeowners have a non delegable duty for safety on their prop ercy, that sometimes courts recognize an
`exception when a borneo wner hires an JNDEP.ENDANT Contractor, BUT plaintiffs WOULD
`(1) exercised control of the work or
`overcome that exception IF Plaintiffs showed the homeowner
`(2) negligently hired or (3) the work constituted a hazardous nuisance".
`Page 7
`
`

`

`TRIAL COURT IMPROPER UNLAWFUL ORDERS AFTER THE 2012 APPEAL
`Plaintiffs throughout & after the 2012 opinion in 2015 showed the trial court that
`the homeowner Dennis cannot share immunity of the corporate employer and showed that the
`2012 opinion stated claims against the homeowner Could proceed if plaintiffs showed, as we did,
`that the independent contractor doctrine does not apply.
`The Permit Homeowner Certification and Dennis's admissions showed the homeowner
`exercised control, did negligently hire and the work constituted a nuisance , Dennis unlawfully
`commenced re-roofing, in addition to failing to sufficiently warn plaintiff.
`In 2015 Plaintiffs requested judge Morgan to re-instate all plaintiffs claims against the
`homeowner and re-enter the judgment for damages up to death and to order a date to determine
`damages after death. In 2015 Judge Morgan did not comply with the law and standards that the
`even 2012 opinion had written he must comply with. On May 15, 2015 Judge Morgan again
`agreed with plaintiffs arguments but denied the orders, stating the only reason he did not
`grant the orders plaintiffs requested was because the 2012 Opinion had written the defendant was
`improperly denied Sum. Jud., BUT on May 15 he granted leave to appeal stating plaintiffs
`have a good cause, a right to see justice & to appeal and stated the permit is what
`created a Genuine Issue & what lead the jury to find the homeowner negligent & stated
`also stated "it was not what he did, but what the 2012 opinion did"(App. A33) He stated he
`thought the 2012 opinion, meant he had to grant summary judgment. But he did not have to,
`R1:7 states a trial judge can correct ANY ERROR CLEARLY capable of producing an unjust
`result and R 4:46 and the 2012 opinion both state "when there are Genuine Issues SUM.JUD.
`MUST BE DENIED ".
`In 2015 even though Judge Morgan again acknowledged there were Genuine Issues, he did
`not comply with the standards or law, or the standard written in the 2012 opinion, that state
`Sum. Jud. MUST BE DENIED,when there are genuine issues, as the Court said in
`LOMBARDI v. MASSO case law also: "what is critical is that the judge give the parties
`opportunity to be heard and APPLY THE CORRECT STANDARD."
`In 2015 the trial courtJudge Morgan or assignment judge judge Curio or the 2017 Appellate
`Court DID NOT COMPLY with the standard rules or law that the 2012 opinion had
`written MUST COMPLIED WITH, and they OVERLOOKED that the 2012 opinion
`REVIEWED THE MATTER AS THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS EMPLOYER.
`Plaintiffs requested reconsideration of May 15, 2015 orders, that were given to the Assignment
`Judge. On Oct. 14, 2015 based only on the 2012 opinion, the assignment judge without
`complying with laws or court rules, denied reconsideration & granted Def. Counsel
`Page 8
`
`

`

`an order enforcing litigant rights of DND inc or DND' President WHO Aren't LITIGANTS.
`(that is clearly not supported by any fact, our claims, the law and is absurd)
`PLAINTIFFS 2015-2017 APPEAL REGARDING CLAIMS AGAINST THE
`HOMEOWNERS INDIVIDUALLY, WHO WAS NOT PLAINTIFFS EMPLOYER
`THEN Oct. 2015. plaintiffs filed THIS APPEAL regarding the HOMEOWNER.
`(App.A-20, 24,25,26.). Plaintiffs Appealed the May 15 denials and Oct. 14, 2015 denial of
`reconsi