V I R G I N I A :

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

JANICE WOLK GRENADIER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ILONA ELY FREEDMAN GRENADIER HECKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

1 - > - r - ~ . >

I i [ i

Case No. CHOI0654

0

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 in defending against Pla int i f fs repeated

filings and barring Plaintiff f rom further filings, without prior approval f r o m the Court, enforceable

under the contempt powers o f this Court and in support therefore state as follows:

1. OnSeptember 10,2012thePlaintifffiledaLisPendensforDamagestoPlaintifffrom

December o f 1986 - Present. (A copy of which is attached as Exhibit #1).

2. A Lis Pendens can only be f i led i n conjunction wi th proceedings directly relating to

the property i n question. 12A Michie's Jurisprudence, Lis Pendens, § 20.

3. Va. Code § 8.01-268(B) further provides that:

No memorandum of lis pendens shall be f i led 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 in 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

160, 163 (1967). 12A Michie's Jurisprudence, Lis Pendens, § l l . 1

5. With in 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 in the Notice o f Lis Pendens, Pla in t i f fs f i l ing is wholly defective as follows:

A . Plaintiff asserts i n the lis pendens that "an action has been instituted and is now pending in the Circuit Court o f the City of Alexandria". Contrary to that assertion, on October 20, 2010 this Court denied P la in 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 Pla int i f fs petition for rehearing. There is no action instituted that is now pending in the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria.

B . Plaintiff asserts i n the lis pendens that the "object o f that action is to (sic) Pla in t i f fs assessment lien against the Defendant's real property". Contrary to that assertion, the properties listed in the lis pendens and the entity known as Alexandria Heckman Properties, L L C were not the subject of any prior or pending action and are identified i n the lis pendens for the first time.

C. 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 rm, Grenadier, Anderson, Starace, Duffet t & Keisler, P.C, without gaining leave of this Court add a party defendant to a closed case.

7. Va. 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.

1 Although the scope of 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 in t i f f s pleadings in this particular case, falls short of any good faith effort to advance a legal claim.

2

8. Va. Code §8.01 -271.1 authorizes this Court, "upon motion or upon its own initiative

. . . impose upon the person who signed the paper. . . an appropriate sanction, which may include an

order to pay to the party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the

f i l i ng 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 of

this matter and w i l l request a monetary award in addition to such fees on grounds that an appropriate

sanction can and in this case, should, include financial compensation beyond attorney's fees incurred

in 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 la in t i f fs latest f i l i ng o f a Lis Pendens is another in a string of frivolous

fi l ings by the Plaintiff, all of 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 Wolk

Grenadier v. Ed Semonian, et. al, Case No. I : l l c v l l 3 6 (EDVa 2012)(Exhibit #4).

12. P la in 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 f i l ing 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, 2011 W L 4443998 (Court o f Appeals 2011)

citingSwitzer v. Fridley, 273 Va. 326, 333, 641 S.E2d 80, 84 (2007); In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1,3-4

(4th Cir. 1992)(Trial courts have the authority to restrict filings when faced with a pattern of frivolous

3

litigation).

WHEREFORE, for 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 Plaint i f f and:

(1) Granting defendants' motion to quash the lis pendens;

(2) 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 in the recorded attachment or lis pendens;

(i i ) ordering the Clerk o f the Court to release the lis pendens; and

( i i i ) 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.

(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 ng any further pleadings or

notices regarding the subject matter and the subjects o f the dismissed claims without prior approval

f rom this Court.

Respectfully submitted,

John M . Tran (VSB #24349) DIMUROGINSBERG, P.C. 1101 King Street, Suite 610 Alexandria, V A 22314 Tel: (703) 684-4333 Fax: (703) 548-3181 Defendants Ilona Grenadier and Grenadier Investment, Co. Ltd.

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

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

5

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 ELY 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> -x>

o 2E

r n -a

O

"0 rv>

m o r e 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 #08Q»G2-0A-A

[Summary of pleadingj

1

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 ihe rights of the Plaintiff as established in the action of case CH01Q654. Where efendanf s 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 as 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

V I R G I N I A :

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:

ron Monday tike 13 t h day* of June, 2 011.

Janice "Wolk Grenadier,

a g a i n s t

A p p e l l a n t ,

Record No. 110156 C i r c u i t Court No. CH010654

I l o n a E l y Freedman Grenadier Heckman, et a l . , Appellees

From the C i r c u i t Court o f the C i t y of Alex a n d r i a

On February 3, 2 011, came the appellees, by counsel, and f i l e d a j o i n t motion t o dismiss the p e t i t i o n f o r appeal. T h e r e a f t e r , came the a p p e l l a n t , i n proper person, and f i l e d a response t h e r e t o . On c o n s i d e r a t i o n whereof, the Court denies the motion.

Upon review of the 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 of t he argument submitted i n support o f and i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the g r a n t i n g of an appeal, the Court i s of o p i n i o n there i s no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r i n the judgment complained o f . A c c o r d i n g l y , t he Court refuses the p e t i t i o n f o r appeal.

A Copy,

Teste

By:

Patr/ i c i a / H a r r i n g t o n , Clerk

Deputy^SJIe rk

Case 1 :11 -cv -01136 -GBL-JFA Documen t 7 Filed 01 /13 /12 Page 1 of 3 Page lD# 46

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

JANICE WOLK GRENADIER,

Plaintiff, C A S E NO. L11CV1I36

v.

ED SEMONIAN, etal.,

Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER 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. §

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

1915(eX2)(B)(i).

Case 1 :11 -cv -01136 -GBL-JFA Document 7 Filed 01/13/12 P a g e 2 of 3 Page lD# 47

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 cover-

up 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 Documen t 7 Filed 01/13/12 Page 3 of 3 Page lD# 48

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

ORDERED 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

3