Opinion
No. 14-2815-cv
05-29-2015
BURDA MEDIA, INCORPORATED, BURDA HOLDING GMBH & CO., KG, a German Limited Partnership, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees, v. CHRISTIAN VIERTEL, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellant, SALVADOR BLUMENBERG, HOT LINE DELIVERY, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Cross-Claimants-Cross-Defendants, FRITZ G. BLUMENBERG, TELECOMMUNICATION PARTNERS LIMITED, TRANSVIDEO, AGATE REALITY, TV BROADCAST CENTER, JOHN LEE, Defendants-Cross-Claimants.
FOR DEFENDANT-CROSS-DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Christian T. Viertel, pro se, Florence, Italy. FOR PLAINTIFFS-COUNTER-DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: No appearance.
SUMMARY ORDER
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 29th day of May, two thousand fifteen. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, REENA RAGGI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
FOR DEFENDANT-CROSS-DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:
Christian T. Viertel, pro se, Florence, Italy.
FOR PLAINTIFFS-COUNTER-DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES:
No appearance.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert W. Sweet, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Christian Viertel, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's judgment denying his third motion to vacate the 2000 default judgment entered against him. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
Viertel's arguments are barred by the law of the case doctrine, which "forecloses reconsideration of issues that were decided—or that could have been decided—during prior proceedings" in the same case. United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468, 471 (2d Cir. 2007). His arguments on appeal were either raised and decided in conjunction with his 2004 or 2010 appeals, or could have been raised in one or both of the prior appeals. He has forfeited his argument that the district court's pro se intake unit improperly rejected his filings by failing to raise it below. See In re Nortel Networks Corp. Sec. Litig., 539 F.3d 129, 132 (2d Cir. 2008).
Additionally, we find no reason, in Viertel's brief or elsewhere, to overturn our prior holding that the district court had personal jurisdiction over Viertel, and that the default judgment was properly entered. See Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel, 417 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2005).
We have considered Viertel's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk