No. 21-7868

Lee Michael Pederson v. Phillip Frost, et al.

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-05-13
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: calder-v-jones civil-procedure civil-rights due-process federal-jurisdiction intentional-interference personal-jurisdiction venue-transfer witness-tampering
Key Terms:
DueProcess Securities
Latest Conference: 2022-09-28
Question Presented (from Petition)

Does Minnesota have the power to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over
Respondents/Defendants Phillip Frost and CoCrystal Pharma, Inc. under Colder v Jones, where
the Respondents/Defendants intentionally damaged Petitioner/Plaintiff Lee Pederson 's previous
lawsuit in Minnesota Federal District Court by paying a potential witness (Respondent/
Defendant Daniel Fisher) to withhold promised documents and testimony from Pederson in the
previous case?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does Minnesota have the power to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Phillip Frost and CoCrystal Pharma, Inc. under Calder v Jones, where the intentionally damaged Lee Pederson's previous lawsuit in Minnesota Federal District Court by paying a potential witness (Respondent/ Defendant Daniel Fisher) to withhold promised documents and testimony from Pederson in the previous case?

Docket Entries

2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-06-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-05-25
Waiver of right of respondent Phillip Frost to respond filed.
Main Document
2022-05-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 13, 2022)
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma PauperisPetitionAppendixProof of Service

Attorneys

Lee M. Pederson
Lee Michael Pederson — Petitioner
Phillip Frost
Robert J. Anello — Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello P.C., Respondent