VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL
Magistrate Judge William D. Wall
US Federal Courthouse
100 Federal Plaza
Central Islip, NY 11722-4438

Dear Magistrate Judge Wall:

By Order dated March 1, 2002, this Court directed plaintiffs to make any motions to amend their complaint by March 22, 2002. Plaintiffs failed to move by that date and attempted to simply serve and file a document styled Second Amended Complaint [A prior Amended Complaint also served and filed without benefit of a motion was referred to by this Court as a nullity.]. I objected to that service by letter to the Court dated April 10, 2002.

Subsequently, at a conference held before Your Honor on April 19, 2002, you extended Plaintiffs' time to move to amend their complaint until May 17, 2002. It is my personal recollection of that conference that Your Honor gave Mr. Novak quite explicit instructions at the April 19, 2002 appearance and repeatedly queried Mr. Novak as to whether he understood those instructions. Yet once again, plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Court's Order.

Today, May 21, 2002, I received from plaintiffs via United Parcel Service, a letter requesting leave to file an amended complaint and a document titled "Second Amended Complaint". The pleading document is undated and although the letter is dated May 16, 2002, the United Parcel Service Tracking System indicates that the document was in fact posted on May 20, 2002. A printout of the United Parcel Service tracking information is enclosed herewith along with a copy of the shipping label from the envelope bearing the tracking number.

Mr. Novak did not contact this office seeking an extension of time to serve his motion.

Additionally, I must protest the misrepresentation of my opinion and my client's position as expressed in Mr. Novak's letter. I never agreed to this amended complaint or any other and have consistently opposed each one on its own merits once afforded the opportunity to review the contents. The conversation Mr. Novak and I had involved the efficacy of amending the complaint to remove information relating to the defendants who have already settled.

Lastly, the current "Second Amended Complaint" is different than the Second Amended Complaint served in March and stamped "Received" by the Clerk's Office on March 25, 2002. The file is becoming increasingly cluttered with mislabeled and misleading documents, many of them "nullities" as this Court has pointed out. Compounded with the inability of pro se plaintiff's to accurately report the procedural history of the case, defendants have been and continue to be prejudiced both in substance and in an unwarranted increase in attorneys fees because defendant's counsel is forced to research and supply accurate information to the Court and forced to make additional appearances and to respond to repeated failures on plaintiff's part to conform to the Rules of Procedure.

Such frivolous and dilatory tactics should not pass without consequences simply because the perpetrator is not personally subject to the Code of Professional Responsibility. My clients' one and only counterclaim in this action alleges that plaintiff's brought this suit to harass and intimidate them and to force them to incur attorney's fees to defend. This continuing pattern of misuse of access to the courts amply demonstrates that claim.

Respectfully submitted,
[signed]
Cynthia A. Kouril