Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

USA v. Baxter, No. 1:10-cv-00435-JAW (District of Maine)

Download Options

Released: February 1, 2012
Case 1:10-cv-00435-JAW Document 46 Filed 02/01/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1146
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)






)


Plaintiff,


)






)

v.




)
1:10-cv-00435-JAW






)
GLENN A. BAXTER,


)






)


Defendant.

)


ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS



On January 10, 2012, the Court issued an Order on the United States’ motion
for summary judgment, granting it in part and denying it in part. Order on Mot. for
Summ. J. (Docket # 38). The Court imposed requested forfeitures on Count I in the
amount of $3,000 and on Count II in the amount of $7,000. Id. at 38.
On January 19, 2012, the United States filed a partial voluntary dismissal
with prejudice as to all remaining causes of action and asked that the Court’s Order
be reduced to judgment. Mot. for Partial Voluntary Dismissal (Docket # 40). On
January 27, 2012, Mr. Baxter objected, citing Rule 54(b), observing that on
February 8, 2012, he plans to file an appeal to the Court’s January 10, 2012 decision
on the motion for summary judgment, and he contends that because the First
Circuit Court of Appeals may reverse the Court’s Order and remand the case,
“dismissal of this case with prejudice at this time is clearly not appropriate.”
Objection to Mot. for Partial Voluntary Dismissal Dated 19 Jan. 2012 (Docket # 43).
On January 30, 2012, the United States replied, indicating that granting its motion

Case 1:10-cv-00435-JAW Document 46 Filed 02/01/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1147
will not affect Mr. Baxter’s right of appeal and that Mr. Baxter did not offer a valid
reason for his objection. Reply to Objection to Mot. for Partial Voluntary Dismissal
(Docket # 44).

In addition, on January 28, 2012, Mr. Baxter filed another motion. Def.’s
Mot. for Leave to Present the Record of Pl.’s Dishonesty in This Case to the Jury for
Their Consideration of a Monetary J. Against the Pl. for Actual Damages (Docket #
45). In his latest motion, Mr. Baxter demands a jury trial “to examine the evidence
in the record of dishonesty and wrongdoing by the Plaintiff in this case so that the
jury can determine if and how much actual damage has accrued to the Defendant as
a result of such dishonesty and wrongdoing.” Id. at 1. He also reiterates his view of
Rule 54(b) and correctly says that the summary judgments are “not final
judgments.” Id. Finally, he declines the United States’ offer to dismiss the case
with prejudice “in order to protect his rights of Appeal.” Id.

Mr. Baxter’s confusion is understandable. The final judgment rules are not
easy to grasp. However, here, the United States is entirely correct. First, as Mr.
Baxter notes in his second motion, the Order on the United States’ motion for
summary judgment is not yet appealable to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Although the Court has ruled in favor of the United States on two of those claims,
the United States would have a right to a trial on any remaining claims and no
appeal would be ripe until all claims were finally resolved. Mr. Baxter cannot now
appeal the Court’s Order on the summary judgment motion and any attempted
2


Case 1:10-cv-00435-JAW Document 46 Filed 02/01/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1148
appeal of the Order would be deemed interlocutory and would be remanded to the
district court for disposition of the remaining claim.
Second, by moving to dismiss the remaining claims against Mr. Baxter and
asking that judgment be entered, the United States is foregoing its right to pursue
the $4,000 forfeiture against Mr. Baxter demanded in Count III, communications in
which an amateur station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest. The
dismissal with prejudice of the remaining claim could only benefit Mr. Baxter.
Third, Mr. Baxter does not have the right to a jury trial to determine the
amount of damages the United States allegedly caused him. On May 23, 2011, the
Court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss his counterclaims, concluding
that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Order on Mot. to Dismiss Am. Countercl.
(Docket # 26). Of course, once the case is reduced to final judgment, Mr. Baxter has
the right to appeal this ruling as well as the Court’s decision on the United States’
motion for summary judgment to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. He may not,
however, at this point receive a jury trial on claims that the Court has dismissed.
This leads to the final point. Once judgment is entered, Mr. Baxter would
have the undoubted right to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit. By its motion to dismiss, the United States has hastened the day that
Mr. Baxter may do what he plans to do: appeal this case.
In summary, there is no reasonable basis for Mr. Baxter to object. By
granting the United States’ motion, the Court effectively approves the United
States’ decision not to continue to pursue all its claims against Mr. Baxter and
3


Case 1:10-cv-00435-JAW Document 46 Filed 02/01/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1149
allows (upon entry of judgment) Mr. Baxter to immediately pursue his right of
appeal against the Court’s decisions dismissing his Counterclaim and granting the
United States’ motion for summary judgment on the two forfeitures.
The Court GRANTS the United States’ Motion for Partial Voluntary
Dismissal (Docket # 40) and DISMISSES Count III of Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint with prejudice and without costs. The Court ORDERS that the Clerk
enter JUDGMENT in favor of the United States and against Glenn A. Baxter in the
amount of $3,000 on Count I, willfully or repeatedly failing to respond to a Federal
Communications Commission inquiry in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 308, in favor of the
United States and against Glenn A. Baxter in the amount of $7,000 on Count II,
willful or malicious interference with other radio transmissions in violation of 47
C.F.R. § 97.101(d), and against the United States and in favor of Glenn A. Baxter on
Count III, communications in which an amateur station licensee or control operator
has a pecuniary interest. The Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion for Leave to
Present the Record of Plaintiff’s Dishonesty in This Case to the Jury for Their
Consideration of a Monetary Judgment Against the Plaintiff for Actual Damages
(Docket # 45).
SO ORDERED.






/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.





JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.





CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 1st day of February, 2012
4


Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.