`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. _____________
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`
`
`J. CORY CORDOVA
`
`
`Christine M. Mire/Attorney
`Applicant,
`
`v.
`LOUISIANA STATE UNIVRSITY AGRICULTURAL & MECHANICAL COLLEGE BOARD OF
`SUPERVISORS, KAREN CURRY, M.D., KRISTI ANDERSON, LAFAYETTE GENERAL MEDICAL
`CENTER, INCORPORATED, LAFAYETTE GENERAL HEALTH SYSTEM,
`INCORPORATED, UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL & CLINICS, INCORPORATED, NICHOLAS SELLS,
`M.D.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respondents.
`
`
`
`EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY OF PRECEEDINGS AND
`EXECUTION OF FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MANDATE
`PENDING DISSOLUTION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 19, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` Page(s)
` Contents
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... ii
`
`APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................... v
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................... ix
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 5
`
`A. Factual Background ...................................................................................................... 5
`1. An Undisclosed Concurrent Conflict of Interest and Improper Removal ........... 8
`
`2. The Improper Removal ...................................................................................... 11
`
`B. Procedural History .........................................................................................................12
`
`1. The Attempted Dismissal of an Indispensable Party ........................................... 12
`
`2. Shifting Burdens of Proof and Assumption of Jurisdiction ................................. 16
`
`3. Gamesmanship v. Candor ................................................................................... 20
`
`4. Subsequent Proceedings in State Court Injunctive/Declaratory Relief …...…… 24
`
`5. Proceedings in District Court Related to Clarification of its
`prior rulings and Motion for Relief of Judgment Pursuant
`to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60 …………………….……………... 26
`
`6. Appeal to Fifth Circuit Related to the Motion for Relief
`of Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60
`(Case Nos.: 22-30548 C/W 22-30732) …………………………...……....…… 29
`
`C. The Instant Appeal of Rule 11 Sanctions Imposed by the District Court …..………... 30
`
`1. The Rule 11 sanctions hearing is set by the District Court
` while the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion is pending on appeal …..……...…… 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`3. The Fifth Circuit opinion and warning is first issued to
` Applicant four (4) days after the district court
` entered its sanctions award …………………………….…………………….. 35
`
`4. Fifth Circuit decision affirming the district court’s award of
`
`
` Rule 11 sanctions that forms the basis of this application and
` Petition for Writ of Certiorari…………………………………………............ 38
`
`
`2. A Motion for Sanctions is filed by Applicant before the
` Fifth Circuit providing additional documentation to
` support applicant’s arguments that the district
` court lacked subject matter jurisdiction ……...……….…….………….……. 33
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Two Appeals of One Order of Sanctions ………………..……….. 38
`
`Applicant is referred to the Fifth Circuit mediation
`to negotiate settlement of a sanctions order ………………..…… 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`c.
`
`
`
`d.
`
`
`e.
`
`
`Obstacles encountered at the district court level when
`Applicant sought to pay a second fee for the appeal of
`one order of sanctions ……………………………….………...… 40
`
`
`
`Respondents continued efforts to moot the merits
`of Applicant’s appeal of sanctions …………………….…………. 41
`
`Additional orders entered by the district court while review
`was pending before this Court ..…………………….…...…..…… 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5. Applicant’s Arrest in State Court ……….…..………….................................. 43
`
`6. Respondents file a Motion for Contempt before the federal district court
` seeking Dr. Cordova’s arrest ………………………….....….…………......... 44
`
`7. Second Request for a Stay of Proceedings
` from the Fifth Circuit ……………………………………...……..........……. 45
`
`8. Respondents’ Motion for Contempt proceeds before the
` federal district court ………………………………………………………… 46
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 49
`
`
`I.
`
`APPLICANT IS LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS .......................... 50
`
`A. The Party who Invoked the Jurisdiction of the
` Federal Court, Bear the Burden of Establishing Jurisdiction .................... 50
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`B. Respondents Lack Standing to Remove the Case as Private Actors ............ 53
`
`C. The Public Interest of Lawyers and Litigants Favor a Stay………...……... 55
`
`THE EQUITIES OVERWHELMING FAVOR A STAY……...……..……….. 56
`
`
`II.
`
`A. Applicant will Experience Substantial and Unrecoverable Harm .............. 56
`
` B. Factual finding and Objective Evidence in the Record .............................. 56
`
`
`
`III. CONSIDERATION OF THIS APPLICATON AS A PETITION FOR WRIT
`OF CERTIORARI ………………………………………………………….….. 61
`
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 61
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................................ 64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Lower Federal Court Rulings:
`
`U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal Rulings
`
`Denial Motion to Recall Mandate and Stay
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 11, 2024) ………………………………….……………..……… App. 1
`
`Judgment/Mandate
`(Affirmed Rule 11/Remanded Rule 38 Applicant)
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (January 31, 2024) …………………………….……………………… App. 3
`
`Opinion
`(Affirmed Rule 11/Remanded Rule 38 Applicant)
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (January 31, 2024) …………………………….……………………… App. 5
`
`Unpublished Per Curiam Decision
`(Affirmed Rule 60b, Remanded Rule 38 Plaintiff,
`Denial Motion to Disqualify, Denial Motion for Sanctions)
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case Nos. 22-30548, 22-30732 (April 17, 2023) ………………………………………… App. 19
`
`
`U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana Rulings
`
`
`Electronic Order
`(Setting Deadline Rule 38 Sanctions against Applicant)
`Exhibit 10: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV-1027 (February 22, 2024) …………………… App. 609
`
`Judgment – Denial Motion to Dismiss/Lack of personal jurisdiction
`Exhibit 8: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV-1027 (January 12, 2024) ………...…………… App. 386
`
`Memorandum Ruling Motion to Dismiss/Lack of personal jurisdiction
`Exhibit 8: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV-1027 (January 12, 2024) …………..………… App. 380
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Memorandum Order Rule 38 award against Plaintiff
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV-1027 (June 29, 2023) ……………..…………… App. 27
`
`Order awarding attorney’s fees/costs Rule 11 against Applicant
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV1027 (April 13, 2023) ………………..………… App. 30
`
`Memorandum Order granting Rule 11 Sanctions against Applicant
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV-1027 (February 27, 2023) ……….…..………… App. 32
`
`Memorandum Ruling Denying Motion to Vacate pursuant to Rule 60(b)
`and Granting Rule 11 Sanctions to the LSU Defendants
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No. 6:19-CV-1027 (August 23, 2022) …………...…………… App. 48
`
`Lower Federal Court Filings:
`
`U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal Filings
`
`Appellant’s Opposed Motion to Recall Mandate and Stay Proceedings
`With Exhibits 1-15 attached
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 4, 2024) ………………………………….……………..……… App. 66
`
`
`U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana Filings
`
`Statement of No Opposition to Motion to Withdraw
`Exhibit 15: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV-1027 (March 5, 2024) …………………...…… App. 616
`
`Second Motion to Withdraw
`Exhibit 1: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV-1027 (February 6, 2024) ……………………… App. 84
`
`Respondents’ Reply Memorandum Motion For Contempt
`Rule 38 Sanctions against Plaintiff
`Exhibit 6: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV-1027 (December 29, 2023) …………...……… App. 366
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Louisiana State Court Filings:
`
`
`Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals Filings
`
`
`Respondents’ Opposition Application for Supervisory Writ
`Exhibit 5: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`J. Cory Cordova v. Lafayette General Health System, Inc., et al.,
`Doc. No. 23-00752 (December 19, 2023) ……………………………….….…………… App. 251
`
`Original Application For Writ of Supervisory Review
`On Behalf of A Non-Party/Attorney For Plaintiff
`With Attachments
`Exhibit 9: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`J. Cory Cordova v. Lafayette General Health System, Inc., et al.,
`Doc. No. 23-00752 (December 5, 2023) ………………………………………………… App. 387
`
`Other
`
`July 18, 2023 Email
`From Respondent, attorney James Gibson to Applicant
`Exhibit 7: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 4, 2024) ………………………………….…………………… App. 374
`
`December 28, 2020 Email
`From attorney, Jacque Bezou to Applicant
`Exhibit 4: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 4, 2024) ………………………………….…………..……… App. 249
`
`March 22, 2024 Email
`From Respondents’ attorney, James Gibson to Applicant
`Exhibit 14: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 4, 2024) ………………………………….…………....……… App. 615
`
`March 25, 2024 Email
`Response from Applicant, to Respondents’ attorney, James Gibson
`Exhibit 13: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 4, 2024) ………………………………….…………………… App. 613
`
`Lindke v. Freed, 601 U. S. _____ (2024)
`Exhibit 2: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 4, 2024) ………………………………….……………..……… App. 87
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`LSU System Audit January 10, 2024
`Exhibit 3: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 4, 2024) ………………………………….…………..……… App. 105
`
`February 7, 2024 Plaintiff’s Proof of Payment
`Exhibit 12: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 4, 2024) ………………………………….…………....……… App. 611
`
`May 22, 2022, FOIA OIG Complaint ………….………...…………….…...……..……… App. 619
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Allen v. State ex rel. Ernest, N Morial New Orleans
` Exhibition Hall Auth.,
`2002-1072(La. 4/9/03), 842 So.2d 3732 ……………………………….……….………. 54
`
`Allemang v. State of Louisiana et al.,
`2019 WL 3368783 …………….…………………………………….…………….…. 33, 34
`
`Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan,
`526 U.S. 40 (1999) ………….……………………………………………...…….……… 53
`
`Beiser v. Weyler,
`284 F.3d 665 (5th Cir. 2002)……………………………………...……….………..… 23, 59
`
`Bell v. Hood,
`367 U.S. 678 (1946) ……………..……..………………………………...…….….… 21, 23
`
`Buck v. Davis,
`580 U.S. 100 (2017) ........................................................................................................... 29
`
`Burnett v. Grattan,
`468 U.S. 42 (1984) ............................................................................................................ 53
`
`
`Carter v. Fenner,
`136 F.3d 1000 (5th Cir. 1998) ……….………………………...…………………….…… 29
`
`
`Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.,
`501 U.S. 32 (1991) ……….………………………………...…...…………..…………… 62
`
`Cordova v. La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. Bd. of Supervisors,
` N. 21-30239, 2022 WL 1102480 (5th Cir. Apr. 13, 2022) ……...........................…….. 24, 29
`
`
`Davis v. Maggio,
`706 F.2d 568, 571 (5th Cir. 1983) ………………………….…….………………………. 2
`
`Derbes v. Louisiana, Through Landry,
`2023 WL 4265757 (5th Cir. 6/29/23) ………………………………………………… 34, 35
`
`Derbes v. Louisiana, Through Landry,
`No. CV 21-710-SDD-SDJ, 2022 WL 4838211,(M.D. La. Sept. 9, 2022) ………….……. 35
`
`Derbes v. Louisiana, Through Landry,
`No. CV 21-710-SDD-SDJ, 2022 WL 4793052 (M.D. La. Sept. 30, 2022) ……...………. 35
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Driscoll v. Stucker,
`04-0589 (La. 1/9/05), 893 So.2d 32 ……………………………………...…………..…….. 11
`
`Gentile v. State Bar of Nev.,
`501 U.S. 1030 (1991)………………………………………………..………….….……. 58
`
`Hays v. University Health Shreveport,
`21-1601, 332 So.3d 1163 (La. 1/7/22) ……………………...………….….……..… 28, 52, 53
`
`Lapides v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia,
`535 U.S. 61 (2002) …………………………………..………………………….…………. 19
`
`Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez,
`531 U.S. 533 (2001) ……………………………………………………….……………..... 56
`
`Lindke v. Freed,
`601 U.S. __________ (2024)………………………………………..…………… 12, 51, 52
`
`Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,
`370 U.S. 626 (1962) …………………………………..………………………..………….. 62
`
`Lutostanski v. Brown, et al.,
`88 F.4th 582 (5th Cir. 2023) ………………………………………………………… 36, 37
`
`
`Meyers ex Rel. Benzing v. Texas,
`454 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2006) ………...………………………...…………………………… 19
`
`Nelson v. Ochsner Lafayette General,
`332 So.3d 1172 (La. 1/7/22) …………………...…….………………….…………. 28, 52, 53
`
`Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
`523 U.S. 83 (1998) ……………………………………….….………………… 22, 23, 36, 50
`
`Thomas v. Cap. Sec. Servs., Inc.,
`
`836 F.2d 866 (5th Cir. 1988) …………………………….…………………………... 31, 61
`
`Timbs v. Indiana,
`139 S.Ct. 682 (2019) ………………………………………..…………………………. 3, 55
`
`Trinity Gas Corp. v. City Bank & Tr. Co. of Natchitoches,
`54 F. App’x 591 (5th Cir. 2002) ………………………………….……………....…….…… 59
`
`Waleski v. Montogomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP, et al.,
`No.: 22-914, 599 U.S. _____ (2023) ……………………………………...……..……….... 50
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`Williams v. New Orleans Public Serv., Inc.,
`728 F.2d 730 (5th Cir. 1984) ………………………….…………………………......……… 29
`
`Williamson v. Tucker,
` 645 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1981) .………………….………………...…….…………....……… 21
`
`Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co.,
`149 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 1998) ………………...…………………………………….……….. 59
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`
`U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 2 ………………......………….…………. 1, 2, 5, 11, 14, 22, 36, 37, 51
`
`U.S. Const. amend. XI …………………………….………….…….………………...…….……. 34
`
`U.S. Const. amend. XIV ………………….…….………….…………….....…………… 11, 34, 36
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1035………………………………………………………………………….……… 3
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1513 ………..…………………………………...…………………………..…….… 3
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331……………………..………………………...…………….……………… 11, 36
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1343…………………………………………………….………………….……….. 11
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1446……………………………….…… ……………………....……………........... 13
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1447…………………………………………...……………...…………….…… 19, 37
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1927……………………………….…….……………………...……………........... 59
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1983 …………………………………….……..… 1, 11, 12, 14, 20, 32, 34, 35, 51, 53
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1988 …………………………………….………………………………... 8, 20, 27, 30
`
` JUDICIAL RULES
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 27 ………………………………………..……....……………..……………….. 28
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 38 …………………..…….…...….……………………………….. 2, 29, 36, 37, 39
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 59 …………………...…………..……………………………………….……… 29
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 …………….…………………….…....….…... 1, 2, 30, 32, 35, 38, 45, 47, 57, 59
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ……………………………………………………..……… 12, 13, 17, 20, 27, 59
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 ……….………………………………….……..…..………………….. 12, 17, 22
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 ………………………..……….…………..…………………………….... 16, 17
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 ……………………………………….………………………….………… 19, 24
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ………………………………………….………...…………..…………… 7, 15
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 ……………….……...………..…….….….... 2, 26, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 56, 58, 59
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 ……………………….…………………...………..……………..…………… 22
`
`W. D. La., L.R. 11.2 …………………………………………..….………………..……………. 16
`
`W. D. La., L.R. 74.1 ……………………………………………..……………………………..... 22
`
`LOUISIANA STATUTES
`
`LA R.S. 17:1519.1…………………………………….……………..……………...………… 6, 12
`
`LA R.S. 17:3390 ……………………………………………….……….………………… 9, 12, 53
`
`LA R.S. 23:291 …………………………………………………………………............……….. 25
`
`LA R.S. 23:1031……………………………………………………………...………………...... 54
`
`LA R.S. 23:1061 ………………………………………………….……………………………… 54
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`18A Charles Alan Wright et al.,
`FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 4433 n.39 (3d ed. 2021) .…………………..…... 59
`
`Zachary D. Clopton & Alexandra D. Lahav.,
`Fraudulent Removal,
`135 Harv. L. Rev. F. 87 (2021) …………..……………………..…………………….…. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`LOUISIANA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
`
`Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.3 ...……………………………………………. 2
`
`Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 2.1 …………………...…………………………. 2
`
`Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3 ……………………...…………………...….. 2
`
`Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.3 ………………………...…………….……… 2
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`TO THE HONORABLE SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR.,
`ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT AND
`CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This Application presents issues that far exceed the initial procedural infelicities this case
`
`presented when it reached this Court on two (2) prior occasions.1 Respondents, all private actors,
`
`allege they obtained a judgment on the merits contained in an order granting remand that
`
`summarily dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s state law claims and purported federal claims
`
`brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983—a claim Plaintiff never pled, Plaintiff lacked Article III
`
`standing to allege, and the federal court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss on the merits. When
`
`Applicant requested relief from the Order granting remand, or alternatively, that the district court
`
`clarify the dismissed state law claims in order to defeat Respondents’ plea of federal res judicata
`
`in state court, Applicant and Plaintiff were excessively sanctioned by the federal and state courts.2
`
`When Applicant appealed the denial of post judgment relief based, in part, on lack of subject matter
`
`jurisdiction, sanctions were imposed by the Fifth Circuit for refusing “to heed the district court’s
`
`warnings about ‘unreasonable attempts at continuing this litigation.’”3
`
`While the appeal of the denial of post judgment relief was pending before the Fifth Circuit, the
`
`district court, sua sponte, ordered Applicant to appear before the court pursuant to Respondents’
`
`request for Rule 11 sanctions that encompassed issues that were then pending on appeal.4
`
`Applicant sought a stay from the Fifth Circuit and after the stay was denied, Applicant was
`
`sanctioned by the district court “to deter any more frivolous arguments or filings” related to lack
`
`
`1 See Case Nos.: 21-1280, 23A196 ,and 23-55.
`2 Appendix, p. 48, the August 23, 2022 Memorandum Ruling denying the Motion to Vacate pursuant to Rule 60(b)
`and awarding sanctions to the LSU Defendants issued by the federal district court.
`3 Appendix, p. 19.
`4 Fifth Circuit Case No.: 22-30548, Document 64, Motion for Judicial Notice and Stay of Proceedings filed on January
`30, 2023.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`of state action, lack of Article III standing, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.5 When Applicant
`
`appealed the improper imposition of Rule 11 sanctions, Applicant was again sanctioned by the
`
`Fifth Circuit for repeatedly refusing “to heed the district court’s warnings about ‘unreasonable
`
`attempts at continuing this litigation.’”6 In addition to the current sanctions orders pending review
`
`before this Court, Respondents have used excessive punitive sanctions in state and federal court in
`
`the total amount of $252,724.81 to chill Applicant’s speech and deter her client’s access to the
`
`court system.7
`
`A request for a stay of these proceedings and review of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule
`
`11 sanctions and the imposition of additional Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 38
`
`sanctions by the Fifth Circuit against the Applicant/Attorney may seem to be an extraordinary
`
`remedy for an ordinary case; however, this case is extraordinary.8 This fact intensive case must be
`
`reviewed with attention to the sheer number of punitive sanctions imposed upon Applicant after
`
`reporting suspected health care fraud to federal law enforcement and Respondents’ professional
`
`misconduct to the courts.9 Applicant’s decision to honor her sworn oath and duties to our system
`
`of justice by discharging her mandatory reporting duty as an officer of the court was met with
`
`punitive sanctions, an improper arrest in state court, and threats of additional punitive sanctions to
`
`deter vexatiousness.10 However, the decision to report the discoveries in this case was not to vex
`
`or harass Respondents. Rather, upon discovery of fraud involving public funds and attorney
`
`
`
`5 Appendix, p. 32.
`6 Appendix, p. 17.
`7 Appendix, p. 374, one day after Applicant filed a petition for review of the decisions by this Court, Respondents
`warned: “Rest assured that my clients will seek all legal avenues to atone for the ongoing wrongs.”
`8 Appendix, p. 5, Fifth Circuit Opinion on Rule 11 and Rule 38 sanctions (January, 31, 2024). Appendix p. 32,
`District Court Opinion finding liability for Rule sanctions (February 27, 2023).
`9 Applicant filed Rule 60(b) Motion regarding the undisclosed concurrent conflict of interest in this case and the
`material misrepresentations of the Respondents before the Fifth Circuit on October 14, 2021. See Fifth Circuit Case
`No.:21-30239, Document 44. See also Appendix, pp. 619-627, the public record from the United States Department
`of Health and Human Services/Office of Inspector General confirming the criminal complaint filed by Applicant
`against Respondents on May 22, 2022.
`10 See Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3, 2.1, 3.3, and 8.3.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`misconduct, there is no real choice for any officer of the court who is duty bound by sworn oath
`
`to uphold the criminal and ethical laws of our system of justice without fear or favor. Pursuant to
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1035, it is a serious felony to conceal, cover up, or hide by use of a scheme or device
`
`any Medicaid/Medicare fraud. The repeated requests for sanctions by Respondents constitute
`
`impermissible retaliation that is harmful and/or interferes with Applicant’s lawful employment or
`
`livelihood for providing information relating to the commission or possible commission of a
`
`federal offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e).
`
`This Court reviews what constitutes an excessive fine on a case by case basis, which is fact
`
`intensive and based on the totality of the circumstances. In reviewing the imposition of excessive
`
`fines, this Court views one consideration as virtually dispositive—if the person sanctioned is
`
`entirely blameless, the fine is excessive per se—that is none of the other circumstances matter if
`
`the person sanctioned did nothing wrong.11 The imposition of sanctions in this case are purely
`
`punitive since all sanctions were imposed without jurisdiction, the requisite showing of frivolity,
`
`evidence of any material misrepresentations, and/or evidence of bad faith by Applicant.
`
`A stay of these proceedings pending the disposition of Applicant’s petition is respectfully
`
`requested to prohibit additional abusive litigation tactics and aggressive enforcement of void
`
`judgments that will cause Applicant additional irreparable harm. On April 4, 2024, Applicant filed
`
`an Opposed Motion to Recall Mandate and Stay Proceedings based on this Court’s intervening
`
`and controlling case law decided on March 15, 2024.12 On April 11, 2024, the Fifth Circuit denied
`
`Applicant’s Motion to Recall its Mandate.13 Respondents have proven beyond all doubt, they will
`
`continue to retaliate absent a stay of these proceedings pending this Court’s disposition of
`
`
`11 Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S.Ct. 682 (2019).
`12 Appendix, p. 66. See also Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S.________. (2024).
`13 Appendix p. 1.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Applicant’s writ of certiorari. In fact, after each stay was denied by the courts, Respondents’
`
`retaliation not only continued but intensified.
`
`Applicant has become increasingly concerned due to the escalation of Respondents’ retaliation,
`
`lack of relief from the state and federal courts, and the following events that have occurred since
`
`Applicant last sought relief from this Court: 1.) On July 18, 2023, after receiving a copy of
`
`Applicant’s writ application, lead counsel for the Respondents threatened (in writing) to seek
`
`additional punitive relief from the courts to “atone” for “the ongoing wrongs” to his clients he
`
`attributed to Applicant and/or her client.14 2.) Respondents aggressively executed its improper
`
`punitive sanctions awards in state and federal court (despite timely and pending appeals) aided by
`
`the lower courts’ enormous contempt power.15 3.) On October 9, 2023—after this Court denied
`
`Applicant’s request for a stay and writ of certiorari—Applicant was arrested, spent nine hours in
`
`Lafayette Parish Correctional Center, and was professionally humiliated after being escorted
`
`through the state courthouse in an orange prison jumpsuit, leg shackles, handcuffs, and waist
`
`chains without notice, service, evidence of contemptuous behavior, and/or a final order.16 4.) On
`
`January 23, 2024, a hearing was held by the federal district court on Respondents’ improper
`
`contempt motion for the payment of punitive sanctions. Applicant objected to the district court’s
`
`jurisdiction and was threatened with additional sanctions and ordered to appear under the threat of
`
`a bench warrant.17 Plaintiff’s appearance at the contempt hearing was never summoned; however,
`
`
`
`14 Appendix, p. 374
`15 Appendix p. 387, the Supervisory Writ Application to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals following
`Applicant’s improper arrest in state court. See also, Appendix, pp. 380-386, the district court’s Memorandum Ruling
`and Order requiring Plaintiff to produce confidential financial information to the district court under the threat of
`direct contempt of court and ordering Applicant and Plaintiff into federal court for a Motion for Contempt without
`proper service or subject matter jurisdiction under the penalty of a bench warrant.
`16 See the Application for Stay denied on October 2, 2023, in Case No.: 23A196 and the petition denied in Case No.:
`23-55. See also Appendix, p. 387, a writ application filed before the state appellate court detailing Applicant’s
`improper arrest for sanction imposed against Applicant for filing new claims in state court that were determined to be
`barred by federal res judicata relying on the district court’s Order granting Applicant’s Motion and Amended Motion
`to Remand based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
`17 Appendix, pp. 380-386.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`the district court issued an order securing Plaintiff’s appearance through the threat of the issuance
`
`of a bench warrant for nonappearance. Plaintiff’s compelled appearance was ordered four (4) days
`
`prior to the district court’s initial hearing on Respondents’ Motion for Contempt.18 5.) On March
`
`20, 2024, Applicant’s home was unlawfully entered and a mysterious toxin/chemical was
`
`discovered inside her home by repairmen. This toxin/chemical caused Applicant, her daughter, a
`
`paralegal, and 3-4 repairmen to become ill. Applicant was required to vacate her home until the
`
`source of this toxin/chemical, which appeared to be chlorine gas and a gas leak, could be
`
`investigated and identified.19
`
`A. Factual Background
`
`STATEMENT
`
`This case concerns a purported “merits judgment” contained in an order granting remand,
`
`which is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, obtained under deceptive pretenses. On July
`
`8, 2022, Plaintiff sought relief from the federal court and produced voluminous evidence
`
`establishing that Defendants, all private actors, used the complexity of their contractual
`
`relationship to manufacture Article III standing, obscure Plaintiff’s employment status, and obtain
`
`the improper summary dismissal of state law claims in federal court.
`
`Applicant, an attorney in Lafayette, Louisiana, represented Plaintiff, J. Cory Cordova, M.D.
`
`(“Dr. Cordova”), who was wrongfully dismissed, without cause, from the Internal Medicine
`
`Residency Program located at University Hospital and Clinics, Inc. (“UHC”), in Lafayette,
`
`
`18 The transcript and audio recordings of the contempt proceedings before the district court on January 23, 2024 are a
`recent example of what Applicant and her client experienced as the district court was clearly enraged, told Applicant
`she had filed one too many times with the Fifth Circuit, told Applicant to sit down because he was tired of hearing
`from her, threatened Plaintiff with jail time, and indicated that Applicant would not be allowed to withdraw because
`she “started all of this” and was responsible for the punitive actions taken against her client.
`19 Appendix, p. 613.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Louisiana.20 However, UHC—a private hospital and Dr. Cordova’s true employer—utilized the
`
`complexity of the public private partnership between UHC and Louisiana State University School
`
`of Medicine to gain the benefits of qualified immunity in federal court and avoid liability for Dr.
`
`Cordova’s state law claims.
`
`Beginning in 1997, Louisiana Revised Statute 17:1519.1 provided for the operation of
`
`Louisiana’s ten (10) public hospitals by the LSU Health Science Center-Health Care Services
`
`Division, under the overall management of one of the Defendants, the LSU Board of Supervisors.
`
`These hospitals served as the primary source of health care services for the indigent population of
`
`the state. In addition, these hospitals are utilized by the LSU Health Science Center, a private
`
`entity, as teaching hospitals wherein the medical and dental faculty and medical education students
`
`provide the medical care to patients. In 2013, the LSU Board of Supervisors transitioned
`
`management and operations of these former charity hospitals to private hospital partnerships. In
`
`the Spring of 2013, following a directive from the State, the LSU System began to transition the
`
`management and operations of all but one of its hospitals to private entities, entering into public
`
`private hospital partnerships. This major transformation of public healthcare in Louisiana occurred
`
`in a span of months, beginning in July 2012, when Congress reduced the state’s disaster-recovery
`
`Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rate from 71.92 percent to a projected 65.51
`
`percent, the lowest reimbursement rate Louisiana has had in more than 25 years.
`
`Realizing that the cut to FMAP could be problematic, the public private hospital partnerships
`
`were formed as a way to increase support for healthcare services. The transition of the management
`
`
`20 Defendants are the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College,
`Dr. Karen Curry (the program director at UHC), Dr. Nicholas Sells (the head of UHC’s internal medici