VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA JANICE WOLK GRENADIER, Plaintiff,

v. 1 ->r-~. >

[ i

Ii

Case No. CHOI0654

0

ILONA ELY FREEDMAN GRENADIER HECKMAN, et al., Defendants.

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH LIS PENDENS, FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO VA. CODE 8.01-271.1 AND AN ORDER BARRING PLAINTIFF FROM FURTHER FRIVILOUS FILINGS
Defendants Ilona Grenadier and Grenadier Investment, Co. Ltd. ("Defendants"), by counsel, hereby move this Court for an Order Quashing the Lis Pendens, awarding Defendants their attorney's fees incurred under this motion and as well as incurred i n defending against P l a i n t i f f s repeated filings and barring Plaintiff f r o m further filings, without prior approval f r o m the Court, enforceable under the contempt powers o f this Court and i n support therefore state as follows: 1. OnSeptember 10,2012thePlaintifffiledaLisPendensforDamagestoPlaintifffrom

December o f 1986 - Present. ( A copy o f which is attached as Exhibit #1). 2. A Lis Pendens can only be filed i n conjunction w i t h proceedings directly relating to 20.

the property i n question. 12A Michie's Jurisprudence, Lis Pendens, 3. Va. Code 8.01-268(B) further provides that:

No memorandum o f lis pendens shall be filed unless the action on which the lis pendens is based seeks to establish an interest by the f i l i n g party in real property described i n the memorandum. 4. A lis pendens is improper where the cause of action is simply an attempt to recover a

personal judgment.

Preston's

Drive Inn Restaurant,

Inc. v. Convery, 207 Va. 1013,1016,154S.E.2d ll.

1

160, 163 (1967). 12A Michie's Jurisprudence, Lis Pendens, 5.

W i t h i n the four corners o f the Lis Pendens (Exhibit #1), the Plaintiff limits her causes

of action as claims for a personal judgment including actual and punitive damages. The lis pendens is an attempt to recover a personal judgment. 6. I n addition to the complete failure to assert any factual basis to claim an interest in the

property held by parties i n the Notice o f Lis Pendens, P l a i n t i f f s filing is wholly defective as follows: A. Plaintiff asserts i n the lis pendens that "an action has been instituted and is now pending i n the Circuit Court o f the City o f Alexandria". Contrary to that assertion, on October 20, 2010 this Court denied P l a i n t i f f s Motion for Reconsideration o f a Final Order and dismissed the lawsuit. (Exhibit #2). On June 13,2011 the Virginia Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's appeal. (Exhibit #3). On September 22, 2011 the Virginia Supreme Court denied P l a i n t i f f s petition for rehearing. There is no action instituted that is n o w pending i n the Circuit Court o f the City o f Alexandria. Plaintiff asserts i n the lis pendens that the "object o f that action is to (sic) P l a i n t i f f s assessment lien against the Defendant's real property". Contrary to that assertion, the properties listed i n the lis pendens and the entity known as Alexandria Heckman Properties, L L C were not the subject o f any prior or pending action and are identified i n the lis pendens f o r the first time. Plaintiff maliciously added "Heckman" to Ilona Grenadier's name in order to tie the lis pendens to the entity known as Alexandria Heckman Properties, L L C and the law f i r m , Grenadier, Anderson, Starace, Duffett & Keisler, P.C, without gaining leave o f this Court add a party defendant to a closed case.

B.

C.

7.

V a . Code 8.01-269 provides that i f a lis pendens is quashed or dismissed, the court

may impose sanctions under Va. 8.01-271.1.

Although the scope o f a lis pendens has been debated, see, Republic Services of Virginia, LLC v. American Timberland, LLC, 2006 W L 3421840 (W.D.Va. 2006), the P l a i n t i f f s pleadings in this particular case, falls short o f any good faith effort to advance a legal claim.
1

8.

V a . Code 8.01 -271.1 authorizes this Court, "upon motion or upon its own initiative

. . . impose upon the person who signed the p a p e r . . . an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the party or parties the amount o f the reasonable expenses incurred because of the f i l i n g of the pleading, motion, or other paper or making the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees." Sanctions include but are not limited to an award of attorney's fees. 9. Applying Va. Code 8.01-271.1 is appropriately applied here because the lis pendens

has no basis i n law or fact. 10. Defendants seek leave to present an affidavit o f such fees and costs at the hearing o f

this matter and w i l l request a monetary award i n addition to such fees on grounds that an appropriate sanction can and i n this case, should, include financial compensation beyond attorney's fees incurred i n responding to a particular motion. Vinson v. Vinson, 41 Va. App. 675, 688-89, 588 S.E.2d 392, 398-99 (2003)(Sanctions not limited to actual attorney's fees incurred). 11. Lastly, P l a i n t i f f s latest f i l i n g o f a Lis Pendens is another i n a string o f frivolous

filings by the Plaintiff, all o f which have been appropriately dismissed by the various courts, including the January 13, 2012 dismissal o f her complaint filed i n the federal court. Janice Grenadier 12. v. Ed Semonian, et. al, Case N o . I : l l c v l l 3 6 (EDVa 2012)(Exhibit #4). Wolk

P l a i n t i f f s repeated abusive filings should no longer be tolerated. This Court should

impose as additional sanctions under Va. 8.01-271.1 the entering o f an Order barring the Plaintiff f r o m filing further pleadings relating to the subject matter issues set forth i n the lis pendens without prior approval by the Court. See, Switzer v. Fridley, citingSwitzer (4
th

2011 W L 4443998 (Court o f Appeals 2011) 988 F.2d 1,3-4

v. Fridley, 273 Va. 326, 333, 641 S.E2d 80, 84 (2007); In re Burnley,

Cir. 1992)(Trial courts have the authority to restrict filings when faced with a pattern of frivolous

litigation). WHEREFORE, f o r the reasons stated herein and for such cause as may be shown at the hearing of this matter, Defendants Ilona Grenadier and Grenadier Investment, Co. Ltd. respectfully request that the Court enter an Order awarding judgment against Plaintiff and: (1) (2) Granting defendants' motion to quash the lis pendens; Entering an Order, pursuant to Va. Code 8.01-269: (i) ordering the Clerk o f the Court to take all necessary steps to release all interested parties as found i n the recorded attachment or lis pendens; ordering the Clerk o f the Court to release the lis pendens; and awarding Defendants their reasonable attorney's fees and imposing upon Plaintiff additional economic sanctions fairly compensating the defendants for the costs o f defending against the Plaintiff's repeated filings.

(ii) (iii)

(3)

Entering an Order, under Va. Code 8.01 enforceable under the contempt powers o f

this Court, that the Plaintiff, Janice Wolk Grenadier, be barred f r o m f i l i n g any further pleadings or notices regarding the subject matter and the subjects o f the dismissed claims without prior approval f r o m this Court. Respectfully submitted,

John M . Tran (VSB #24349) D I M U R O G I N S B E R G , P.C. 1101 K i n g Street, Suite 610 Alexandria, V A 22314 Tel: (703) 684-4333 Fax: (703) 548-3181 Defendants Ilona Grenadier and Grenadier Investment, Co. Ltd.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy o f the foregoing was delivered by first class mail, postage prepaid and as a courtesy, by electronic mail this 19 day o f September, 2012, to the foregoing:
th

Janice Wolk Grenadier 15 W. Spring Street Alexandria, V A 22301 j wolkgrenadier@aol. com Plaintiff pro se Michael J. Weiser, Esq. (VSB #17630) 510 King Street, Suite 416 Alexandria, V A 22314 Tel: (703) 836-7003 Fax: (703) 548-4742 mjwesq@erols.com Counsel for Defendant David Grenadier

John M . Tran

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

JANICE WOLK GRENADIER, Plaintiff, vs. ILONA E L Y FREEDMAN GRENADIER HECKMAN AND GRENADIER INVESTMENT CO. LTD, AND GRENADIER, ANDERSON, STARACE, DUFFETT, & KEISLER, P.C. AND DAVID MARK GRENADIER Defendant

Case No.: CH010654 Lis Pendens

m
CD

3 > n -x> r-a

2E

O "0
rv>

ore 5 o f

Lis Pendens for Damages to Plaintiff from December of 1986 - Present

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an action has been instituted and is now pending in the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria in the State of Virginia upon the complaint of Janice Wofk Grenadier Plaintiff, against the above-named Defendants Hona Grenadier (and her husband Jerome Heckman (not named as] defendant a lawyer with Keller Heckman whom has benefited ilfegaliy from his wife's actions and partial ownership of 404 Monroe Ave, from the Funds that Plaintiff loaned in Note - which he benefited), David Grenadier, GiC & Grenadier, Anderson, Starace, Duffett & Keisler, that the object of that action is to Plaintiffs assessment lien against Defendant's rea! property, which is described as followed:
; ?

1. 914 Green Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 (Tax ID 11067500} - Alexandria ; Heckman Properties LLC - Tax Map #080.03-04-02 2. 918 Green Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 (Tax ID 11067000) - Alexandria Heckman Properties LLC - Tax Map#080.03-04-01 3. 404 East Monroe Ave, Alexandria, Virginia 22301 (Tax ID 13417000) - Alexandria Heckman Properties LLC - Tax Map # 044.01-01-12 4. 647 South Washington Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 - Heckman Washington] Street Properties LLC 5. 649 South Washington Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 (Tax ID 50321040) Heckman Washington Street Properties LLC - Tax Map #08QG2-0A-A
:

[Summary o f p l e a d i n g j

2
3 i 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

ny persons in any manner dealing with the above-described reai estate subsequent to the filing of this ;tion will take subject to iherightsof the Plaintiff as established in the action of case CH01Q654. Where efendanfs criminal actions of Professional negligence - Duty of Care Breeched the obligation of their ath - The State, City & Public Grand jury are responsible for maintaining / upholding the United States onstitution, and Civil & Human Rights of Us Citizens, have been breached by Fraud on the Court. hat Defendants criminal actions since December 1986 has cause Plaintiff Exemplary Damages laintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages. Plaintiff has made a claim for exemplary amages because Defendants' acted intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously to insure lat Plaintiff did not get a fair trial. Defendants' blatant abusive regard to the United States of .merica Constitution, Virginia Constitution, Civil Rights of Plaintiff, should be punished. Plaintiff 5spectfully requests an exemplary damage award against Defendants for Twenty Two Million lolfars ($ 22,000,000.). These damages should be awarded both as a punishment and to set a ublic example. The plaintiff suffered emotionally and financially as well has her children ?nocent victims. The acts of the Defendants are egregious and vicious actions against Plaintiff pro se, single mom with her 2 girls because they are Catholic and are x communicated from ie Old Boy Network. Defendant Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman is a lawyer, officer of le court has abused her power, violated her oath, is guilty of malpractice as is her firm and al! ie lawyers in the firm. Maintiffs is entitled to recover for actual damages from 28 East Bellefonte Ave, Bankruptcy osts due to the mismanagement of funds of 28 East Bellefonte, loss of clients and ommissions from actions of Defendant's, along with the Return of the note ilona and her lav / rm holds or compensation for such note and loss of clients due to her actions, attorney's fees, ind cost of suit, loss of time, humiliation and emotional anguish force of emotional distress of he first trial, and now a second trial. The intentional infliction of emotional distress, that Plaintiff las suffered severe permanent emotional injuries from the outrageous and intolerable actions o1 hese Defendant's. Plaintiff should receive from this court relief a s deemed by the Court or Jury leems appropriate and just.
Dated this September 10,2012

nice Wolk Grenadier West Spring Street 'exandria, Virginia 22301 02-368-7178
Certificate of Service HERBY CERTIFY THAT a true and accurate copy of the Plaintiffs Motion to reopen case Fraud on the Court wis land delivered on July 5,2012 to the following: Bona Grenadier/ GiC /Grenadier, Anderson, Starace, Duffett & [ <ies!er PC to Ben Dimuro at DimuroGinsburg, 1101 King Street, Suite 610, Alexandria, VA22314 & David Grenaidier o Michael J . Weiser, 510 King St., Suite 416, Alexandria, VA 22314. Jerome Heckman 4200 Massachusetts Ave WV, Apt 409 & 410, Washington DC, 20016, Keller Heckman, 1001 G Street NW, Suite S00 West, Washington rSc ?0001, 202.434.4100-to John Tran at DtMuroGinsburg 1101 King Street Suite 610, Alexandria, Va 22314 Dated this September 10,2012

Janice Wolk Grenadier ProSe

[Summary of pleading] - 2

VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA JANICE WOLK GRENADIER Plaintiff
v

" CHO10654

GRENADIER INVESTMENT CO.,LTD.,et al. Defendants ORDER This matter came on upon the plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's ruling and subsequent Order entered on October 13,2010; and it appearing to the Court that upon review of said motion, the motion should be denied, it is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of Order dated October 13, 2010, be and the same is hereby denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice and to be placed among the ended cases. Notice of the entry of this order is dispensed with under the provisions of Rule 1:13 since copies of this order are to be mailed to all counsel/parties today. ENTERED this dsD day of October, 2010.

Nolan B. Dawkins, Judge

VIRGINIA:

on

Monday

tike 13 t h

day* of

June, 2 011. Appellant,

J a n i c e "Wolk G r e n a d i e r , against Record No. 110156 C i r c u i t Court No. CH010654

I l o n a E l y Freedman G r e n a d i e r Heckman, e t a l . , From t h e C i r c u i t

Appellees

Court o f t h e C i t y o f A l e x a n d r i a came t h e a p p e l l e e s , b y c o u n s e l , and

On F e b r u a r y 3, 2 011,

f i l e d a j o i n t motion t o dismiss t h e p e t i t i o n f o r appeal. T h e r e a f t e r , came t h e a p p e l l a n t , i n p r o p e r p e r s o n , and f i l e d a r e s p o n s e t h e r e t o . On c o n s i d e r a t i o n whereof, motion. Upon r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s case and c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e argument s u b m i t t e d i n s u p p o r t o f and i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e g r a n t i n g o f an appeal, t h e C o u r t i s o f o p i n i o n t h e r e i s no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n t h e judgment c o m p l a i n e d o f . Court r e f u s e s the p e t i t i o n f o r appeal. A Copy, Teste Patr/icia / By:
Deputy^SJIerk

t h e Court denies t h e

Accordingly, the

Harrington, Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-01136-GBL-JFA

Document 7

Filed 0 1 / 1 3 / 1 2

P a g e 1 of 3 P a g e l D # 46

IN T H E UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T FOR T H E E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA A L E X A N D R I A DIVISION

JANICE WOLK GRENADIER, Plaintiff,

C A S E NO. L11CV1I36

v. ED SEMONIAN, etal., Defendants.

ORDER

THIS M A T T E R is before the Court on Plaintiff Janice Wolk Grenadier's Petition for Reconsideration [Dkl. No. 4 ] . Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider and vacate the Order denying her application to proceed in forma pauperis ("Application") [Dkt. No. 3]. Upon review of the allegations contained in Plaintiffs Complaint [Dkt. No. 1], the Application [Dkt. No. 2], and the arguments offered in Plaintiffs Petition for Reconsideration, the Court is not persuaded to vacate its previous Order and dismisses the Complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915(eX2)(B)(i). A litigant may commence an action in federal court in forma pauperis if such litigant files an affidavit, in good faith, stating that she or he is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). However, under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a district court may "pierce the veil of the plaintiffs factual allegations" to determine whether the action is frivolous or

Case 1:11-cv-01136-GBL-JFA

Document 7

Filed 0 1 / 1 3 / 1 2

P a g e 2 of 3 P a g e l D # 4 7

malicious. Nielzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324, 327 (1989). The court must dismiss the action if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An action is frivolous when it rests on "inarguable legal conclusion[s]" or "fanciful factual allegation[s]" and therefore lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Nielzke, 490 U.S. at 324-325. See also id. at 327-328 (section 1915 allows federal judges "to . . . dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless[,]" including "claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios"); Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th Cir. 1994) ("'fantastic' or 'delusional' claims are . . . insufficient to withstand a charge of factual frivolity[]"). The determination of frivolity is within the discretion of the court considering the in forma pauperis application. Nielzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs Petition for Reconsideration for two reasons. First, review of Plaintiff s Application establishes that she is not indigent. Plaintiff admits that she owns real estate valued at approximately $700,000. Application at 2. Second, Plaintiffs Complaint is frivolous. The Complaint rests on a fantastic and fanciful factual basis, including the following allegations. Various public servants and members of the Virginia State Bar, including multiple judges, lawyers, and court personnel named as defendants in the Complaint, have engaged in a conspiracy to deny Plaintiff "access to the Grand Jury to make a Presentment for Bill of Indictment for Forging, Uttering, and Forging a Public Document" against her former step-mother, Ilona Ely Grenadier, and the law firm Grenadier, Anderson, Starace, Duffett, and Keisler, P.C. Compl. ^ 1. When Plaintiff contacted the Virginia State Bar about the alleged forgery, Bar employees, also named as defendants, "aided the coverup of Bar member crimes." Compl. ^ 2. A judge with the Alexandria Circuit Court, also named as a defendant, admitted to Plaintiff that she would "never get a fair trial" due to the Circuit

Case 1:11-cv-01136-GBL-JFA

Document 7

Filed 0 1 / 1 3 / 1 2

P a g e 3 of 3 P a g e l D # 4 8

Court's, including his own, interpersonal relationships with and bias toward Ilona Ely Grenadier. Compl. Yi 10-12. On the basis of these and other factual allegations, Plaintiff requests that this Court appoint an out-of-state attorney to represent her due to the "Conflict of Interest" that would be created by the appointment of a member of the Virginia State Bar. Compl. ^| 20. The Court declines to vacate the Order denying her application to proceed in forma pauperis because Plaintiff has failed to plead her indigence and, given their fantastic and fanciful nature, Plaintiffs claims are deemed frivolous. The frivolity of Plaintiff s claims is grounds for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Petition for Reconsideration is DENIED. It is further O R D E R E D that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.

Alexandria, Virginia 1 ill I 12

Gerald Bruce Lee United States District Judge