- Report: #1049218
Complaint Review: Dr Abert Carlotti and Dr Michelle Cabret Carlotti - Scottsdale Arizona
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Dr Abert Carlotti and Dr Michelle Cabret Carlotti
Thompson Peak Road Scottsdale, 85255 Arizona, USA
Phone:
948-947-7700
Web:
www.carlotticosmeticsurgery.com
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Dr Abert Carlotti and Dr Michelle Cabret Carlotti Oral surgeons doing plastic surgery procedures and cosmetic procedures with poor results. Scottsdale Arizona
*UPDATE Employee: Absolutely False Claim by Sherry P****
*Consumer Comment: I am Sherry P, and this is a must read about Carlotti
*Consumer Comment: Additional Albert Carlotti and Michelle Cabret-Carlotti Reviews
*Consumer Comment: FRAUD, DECEPTION... ACTING WITH INTENT TO INJURE, and MORE allegations as per court documents. Michelle L. Cabret-Carlotti, Albert E. Carlotti, III & Desert Palm Surgical Group named as DEFENDANTS
*Consumer Comment: Carlotti Cosmetic Surgery Center, Albert Carlotti, Michelle Carlotti (Cabret-Carlotti) $12,000,000 verdict OVERTURNED by Court of Appeals due to lack of sufficient evidence!
I had surgery at Carotti Cosmetic Surgery in Scottsdale, AZ with both Dr Albert Carlotti and Michelle Cabret Carlotti. The surgery left me scarred and disfigured and they accused me of causing the problems, and I have found this is normal procedure for them.
They advertise to do plastic surgery procedures which lead me to believe they were plastic surgeons, but they are not. They are oral surgeons with also a medical degree and medical license but having them to cosmetic surgery or plastic surgery was not good.
I also have several friends who went to them for actual oral surgery and my friends have had serious problems from the work Michelle Carlotti has done.
5 Updates & Rebuttals
anonymous
Arizona,Carlotti Cosmetic Surgery Center, Albert Carlotti, Michelle Carlotti (Cabret-Carlotti) $12,000,000 verdict OVERTURNED by Court of Appeals due to lack of sufficient evidence!
#2Consumer Comment
Thu, February 19, 2015
VICTORY for Mrs. Sherry Petta. The court of appeals OVERTURNS the 12 million dollar verdict and OVERTURNS the trial judge's pre-trial ruling dismissing Mrs. Petta's counterclaim alleging medical battery. Which I believe means that Mrs. Petta can now take legal action against Carlotti Cosmetic Surgery Center (previously named: Desert Palm Surgical Group), Albert Carlotti, Michelle Carlotti (Cabret-Carlotti) for Medical Battery.
By searching the various courts of Arizona it shows that both Albert Carlotti, Michelle Carlotti (Cabret-Carlotti) have been party to a very significant number of lawsuits some which look to be current and/or ongoing.
Scottsdale doctors' $12M defamation award overturned
Ken Alltucker, The Republic | azcentral.com9:15 a.m. MST February 13, 2015The $12 million award was nearly four times larger than the second-highest defamation award in Arizona over the past decade.
The Arizona Court of Appeals has overturned a $12 million jury award to a Scottsdale cosmetic surgeon and his physician wife who sued a former patient for defamation over complaints aired in public and on various websites.
The three-judge appellate court said the $12 million award — nearly four times larger than the second-highest defamation award in Arizona over the past decade — wasn't supported by the evidence and "shocks the conscience" of the court.
The appellate court vacated the jury award and sent the case sent back to Maricopa County Superior Court for a new trial.
In 2011, a Maricopa County jury awarded Dr. Albert Carlotti and Dr. Michelle Cabret-Carlotti $12 million in actual and punitive damages following a 10-day trial over allegations that jazz singer Sherry Petta defamed the physicians and portrayed them in a false light.
Following the jury verdict, Petta said she filed for bankruptcy and was ordered to sell her Scottsdale house.
"This has been the most devastating thing I could have imagined in my life," Petta said. "I appreciate the appellate court's decision. I truly look forward to the proper result coming out if there is a new trial."
Carlotti said Petta rejected his offer to negotiate a settlement. He plans to petition the Arizona Supreme Court for a review of the appellate decision.
He claimed that Petta's persistent complaints on patient websites and her own personal website "heavily damaged our business."
Because she rejected settlement talks, "I don't have a choice but to go the distance on this," said Carlotti, who added that doctors can't adequately defend themselves from consumer website postings because patient-confidentially laws limit what they can disclose.
"We're in a society, particularly on the Internet, where people can express their opinions even if it's factually inaccurate or destructive," he said.
In 2007, Carlotti performed cosmetic surgery on Petta's nose and eyelids and laser treatments on her face. Petta claimed that the laser treatment burned and scarred her face and left her with a persistent, post-procedure infection. The Carlottis attempted to aid her healing and appearance with multiple follow-up treatments, according to court documents.
In January 2008, Carlotti performed a nasal tip surgery on Petta, which Petta later said shortened and curved her nose upward without her permission, according to the appellate court's opinion.
Petta later filed a complaint with the Arizona Medical Board alleging Carlotti had operated on her nose beyond her consent. Petta and Carlotti later clashed when the doctor refused to hand over her medical records, citing the medical board complaint. Police intervened to ensure Carlotti gave Petta the medical records, according to the appellate court's opinion.
Petta began posting reviews and complaints and questioned the credentials of the Carlottis on consumer websites, and she created her own website to detail her complaints and warn other patients about the practice.
The Carlottis' lawyer sent Petta letters in April and May 2008 demanding she remove "all defamatory and baseless" statements from various websites. In May 2008, the Carlottis sued Petta alleging she had posted false and defamatory statements on multiple websites. More than three years later, a Maricopa County jury awarded $12 million to the Carlottis and their medical practice.
The appellate court opinion, delivered by Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, noted that that Carlottis' claims of special damages were not supported by evidence, such as business operations analysis or tax returns.
While testimony claimed that after Petta created her website, the Carlottis' billings dropped from $1.52 million in 2007 to $444,000 in 2010, the appellate court opinion noted that there was no evidence of how that affected the medical practice's net income or profit.
The appellate court said that lack of evidence and the lower court's rejection of Petta's motion for a new trial "allowed plaintiffs to obtain an award of damages not supported by adequate evidence, and allowed a verdict to stand that not only shocks the conscience of this court but was so extreme 'as to manifestly indicate passion, prejudice, mistake or a complete disregard of the evidence.'
Anonymous
Alabama,FRAUD, DECEPTION... ACTING WITH INTENT TO INJURE, and MORE allegations as per court documents. Michelle L. Cabret-Carlotti, Albert E. Carlotti, III & Desert Palm Surgical Group named as DEFENDANTS
#3Consumer Comment
Mon, June 02, 2014
|
FRAUD, DECEPTION, MISREPRESENTATION, ACTING WITH INTENT TO INJURE, and MORE allegations as per court documents. Michelle L. Cabret-Carlotti, Albert E. Carlotti, III & Desert Palm Surgical Group named as DEFENDANTS in Superior Court of Arizona case no: CV2007-010799
I noticed there was a court case noted earlier in this "Rip Off Report" and I feel in my personal opinion that there is another court case that I feel is worth noting/mentioning in regards to the above mentioned individuals. The following is information taken directly from the public record case files of the Superior Court of Arizona Case. All information below is public record can be obtained or confirmed by contacting the Superior Court of Arizona.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA: CASE NUMBER: CV 2007-010799
PLAINTIFFS: Lauretta & Michael M***** DEFENDANTS: Desert Palm Surgical Group, Michelle L. Cabret-Carlotti, Albert E. Carlotti, III
VERDICT & RULING: JUDGE RULED IN FAVOR OF THE PATIENT/PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFFS AWARDED JUDGEMENT against Defendants DPGS; MICHELLE L. CABRET-CARLOTTI; and ALBERT E. Carlotti, III as follows:
1. The "Financial Agreement" signed by Plaintiff is hereby declared to be unenforceable 2. DEFENDANTS ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY RETURN $24,050 prepayment to Plaintiff 3. Plaintiff is AWARDED of prejudgment interest at the rate of ten percent per annum on the $24,050 from the date the Plaintiff cancelled the scheduled procedure on January 2, 2007 4. Plaintiff are AWARDED THEIR ATTORNEY FEES and ASSOCIATE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THIS MATTER from the date Plaintiff cancelled the scheduled procedure, in the amount of $47,889.77
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 6. Desert Palm Surgical Group (DPSG) provides maxillofacial and cosmetic surgery services in addition to various skin care services such as, but no limited to, chemical peels, microdermabrasion and facial massage. THE CARLOTTIS AT ALL TIMES RELEVANT TO THIS COMPLAINT HELD THEMSELVES OUT AS HAVING EXPERTISE IN RECONSTRUTIVE, AND COSMETIC FACIAL AND BODY SURGERY.
7. Ms. M***** went to DPSG in late 2004 or early 2005 for skin care services, including microdermabrasion
8. In November 2005, Ms. M***** made an appointment with Dr. CABRET-CARLOTTI to discuss possible surgery involving her neck area. At this consultation, Dr. CABRET-CARLOTTI RECOMMENDED that the Ms. M***** undergo an ENDOSCOPIC BROWLIFT, an UPPER LID BLEPHAROPLASTY, FACE and NECK LIFT, TCA PEEL and CHEEK IMPLANTS for a total of $16,672.50
9. Ms. M***** considered procedures and decided not to have them done
10. About a year later, Ms. M***** again consulted with Dr. CABRET-CARLOTTI, who RECOMMENDED that, in ADDITION to the above services, to also undergo a PERIORBITAL LASER and LIPOSCULPTURE of her BACK, FLANKS and ABDOMEN, for a total price of $24,300
11. Ms. M***** discussed the RECOMMENDED surgical procedures with her husband and he became CONCERNED about the EXTENT of the PROCEDURES and the CARLOTTIS EXPERIENCE and TRANING
12. In December 2006 both Ms. M***** and Mr. M***** went to Desert Palm Surgical Group (Now named The Carlotti Cosmetic Surgery Center) for an appointment with DEFENDANT CABRET-CARLOTTI
13. At this visit, Mr. M*****, who was CONCERNED about DEFENDANT CABRET-CARLOTTIS QUALIFICATIONS and EXPERIENCE, asked Dr. CABRET-CARLOTTI about her PLASTIC SURGERY EXPERIENCE and her EXPERTISE IN THESE TYPES OF PROCEDURES
14. DEFENDANT CABRET-CARLOTTI RESPONDED THAT SHE HAD BEEN A SURGEON FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS AND THAT SHE DOES THESE TYPES OF PROCEDURES "ALL THE TIME"
15. Mr. M***** also told DEFENDANT CABRET-CARLOTTI that he had heard there were TWO TYPES of PLASTIC SURGEONS, ones with SURGICAL TRAINING that COULD PERFORM SURGERIES in a HOSPTIAL and OTHERS WITH LIMITED TRANING that could PERFORM PLASTIC SURGERY in an office setting, and he wanted to make sure that she was not the latter
16. DEFENDANT CABRET-CARLOTTI ANSWERED THESE QUESTIONS and MADE OTHER STATEMENTS, all of which lead the M******s to BELIEVE THAT DEFENDANT CABRET-CARLOTTI WAS "CERTIFIED" TO PERFORM PLASTIC/COSMETIC SURGERY, THAT SHE HAD THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF TRAINING POSSIBLE, and THAT SHE HAD MORE THAN 20 YEARS EXPERIENCE WITH THESE TYPES OF PROCEDURES
17. The M******s justifiably relied on the representations by DEFENDANT CABRET-CARLOTTI in agreeing that Ms. M***** would go forward with the surgery. Patient, who already paid some deposits, then paid the balance of $23,000-plus on or about December 12, 2006
18. Pursuant to DPSGs written Financial Agreement, patients undergoing cosmetic surgery were required to prepay the entire price three weeks prior to the surgery. The Financial Agreement stated, "This payment is also non-refundable, but it is transferable to a later date for up to six months if your surgery is cancelled due to documented personal medical emergency only. If your surgical procedure needs to be rescheduled within two weeks prior to your scheduled date you will be required to pay a non-refundable rebooking fee. There will be no exceptions made" A true and correct copy of the Financial Agreement is attached as Exhibit "A."
19. Ms. M******s surgery was scheduled for January 18, 2007
20. Upon information and belief, the principle surgeon was to be ALBERT CARLOTTI, III, M.D., whom the M******s had never met
21. Ms. M***** then learned from discussions with others that the DEFENDANTS CARLOTTIS were NOT BOARD CERTFIFIED PLASTIC SURGEONS, that CABRET-CARLOTTI did NOT have 20 years experience (and had not even graduated from medical school until 1999), that BOTH DOCTORS were PRIMARILY DENTAL and MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS, and that MOST BOARD-CERTIFIED PLASTIC SURGEONS WOULD NOT BE WILLING TO PERFOM ALL OF THE PROCEDURES RECOMMENDED BY DEFENDANT CABRET-CARLOTTI IN ONE SURGICAL SESSION
22. The M******s also later discovered that DEFENDANTS CABRET-CARLOTTI and CARLOTTI DO NOT HAVE THE TYPE OR LENGTH OF TRAINING NECESSARY TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BECOME BOARD-CERTIFED PLASTIC SURGEONS
23. Upon information and belief, NEITHER OF THE CARLOTTIS HAD PRIVELEGES TO PERFORM TRADITIONAL PLASTIC OR COSMETIC SURGERY (such as a facelift) IN A HOSPITAL
24. Upon Learning this, Ms. M***** called DPSG on January 2, 2007 to cancel her surgery
25. During the January 2, 2007 telephone conversation, Ms. M***** was told that her payment would ONLY be refunded if she produced a doctors note providing a medical reason for canceling the surgery
26. Ms. M******s physician sent a letter to the Defendants stat that, for various reasons stated in the letter, "IT WOULD BE ILL ADVISED TO PROCEED WITH ANY ELECTIVE SURGERY AT THIS TIME."
27. Desert Palm REFUSED to return the prepayments
28. ARIZONA PROHIBITS PHYSICANS FROM OBTAINING A FEE BY FRAUD, DECEIT OR MISREPRESENTATION. Moreover, it is UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT for a physician to represent or hold oneself out as being a medical specialist when such is not a fact
COUNT ONE: FRAUD/FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT 30. For purpose of inducing Patient to pay the balance of more than $23,000, DEFENDANT CABRET-CARLOTTI FALSLY REPRESENTED TO THE M******s that SHE HAD MORE THAN 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE PERFORMING THESE TYPES OF SURGERIES, THAT SHE HAD THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF TRANING IN THE INDUSTRY, and that SHE WAS PRIVILEDGED TO PERFORM PLASTIC SURGERIES IN A HOSPITAL SETTING
31. CABRET-CARLOTTI knew that her representations regarding her experience, her training and her privileges were FALSE. Alternately, she made FALSE REPRESENTATIONS RECKELSSLY and WITHOUT REGARD FOR THEIR TRUTH OR FALSITY
32. CABRET-CARLOTTI intended that the M******s RELY ON HER FALSE REPRESENTATIONS, and they did so, in the manner contemplated or intended by Cabret-Carlotti, by paying the $23,000-plus balance remaining for the RECOMMENDED SURGERY
33. The M******s were ignorant to the FALSITY of DEFENDANT CABRET-CARLOTTIS REPRESENTATIONS, and their reliance thereon was reasonable in the circumstances
34. As a DIRECT and PROXIMATE RESULTS of DEFENDANT CABRET-CARLOTTISFRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS, the M******s have incurred and paid other amounts, including (but not limited to) the attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses incurred.
35. By DEFRAUDING the M******s, DEFENDANTS ACTED WITH THE INTENT TO INJURE THEM or, alternatively, CONCIOUSLY DISREGARD THE RISK THAT THEIR ACTIONS WERE LIKELY TO CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO THE M******s. In the circumstances, the M******s may be entitled to recover punitive damages from the Defendants.
COUNT TWO: CONSUMER FRAUD UNDER A.R.S. 44-1521 et seq 38. DEFENDANT CABRET-CARLOTTI verbally used DECEPTION, FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION and/or CONCEALMENT, SUPRESSION or OMISSION of material facts with the intent that the M******s rely upon such, in an attempt to induce the M******s to pay for Desert Palms surgical services.
39. By their acts and/or omission alleged herin, DEFENDANTS VIOLATED THE ARIZONA CONUSMER FRAUD ACT
40. DEFENDANT CABRET-CARLOTTI intended that the M******s rely upon herDECEPTION, FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION and/or CONCEALMENT, SUPRESSION or CONCEALMENT of MATERIAL FACTS, and the M******s did so in the manner contemplated or intended by the DEFENDANTS, by paying the surgery price of approximately $25,000 |
S.M.
Scottsdale,Arizona,
Additional Albert Carlotti and Michelle Cabret-Carlotti Reviews
#4Consumer Comment
Thu, December 05, 2013
Please see the following report on Albert Carlotti and Michelle Cabret-Carlotti as it was meant to be filed in addition to this current report.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/carlotti-cosmetic-surgery-center/scottsdale-arizona-85255/carlotti-cosmetic-surgery-centerdesert-palm-surgical-centeralbert-carlottimichelle-cab-1104344
Sherry P
Scottsdale,Arizona,
I am Sherry P, and this is a must read about Carlotti
#5Consumer Comment
Wed, July 31, 2013
Albert Carlotti and Michelle Carlotti (aka Michelle Cabret-Carlotti) aka Desert Palm Surgical Group, Carlotti Cosmetic Surgery, Desert Palms Professional Properties, sued me for defamation after I (a) reported them to the Arizona Medical Board for violations to the Medical Practice act which included using laser equipment which was not licensed (and had no record of service), and for extremely bad results from procedures in their office, which included 2nd degree burns (with them subsequently treating me for MRSA all over my face), and a poor result in a rhinoplasty procedure. I reviewed them on line and posted photos of my damaged face to a website, offering suggested research and caution on doctor selection so that things like what happened to me did not happen to anyone else.
Carlotti claimed my statements were false. I assure any readers, my statements were true and I will stand by that forever more.
Carlotti did win the lawsuit as they blasted above, however, CASEY ANTHONY ALSO WON IN HER TRIAL.
Carlotti winning the lawsuit does not mean they didn't harm me; it does not mean my statements were not true; and it does not mean they licensed and serviced their laser equipment; and it does not mean they did not falsify my medical records.
It means we had a jury who did not really look at evidence. It means we had a jury who bought into Carlotti's lies, and their attorney's who perpetrated their lies.
The right people do not always win in trial. Quite often, innocent and honest people are not only the victims of bad people and bad situations, but they are further victimized by a "justice" system that somehow cannot let the truth be told, and by manipulation by lawyers who are encouraged to lie, to twist the truth, and mislead the jury, all simply so they can win. It's not about the truth for them, it's about winning. It's not about right and wrong for them, it's about winning.
After trial, with my attorney present (before verdict), I said to Carlotti's attorney, "Of all the firms the Carlotti's have had representing them, you have been the nicest. But I do not like you at all when you are standing up there lying about me."
The attorney's seemingly apologetic response was, "you know I'm just doing my job, right?"
When an attorney can basicially admit to my statement, of lying about me, yet has no qualms about doing it during trial because "it's his job," then we do not have a justice system about the truth.
The decision is being appealed, and I pray to God that the appellate court will do a better job than the civil court.
Carlotti, under all of the aka's mentioned above, are party to approximately and/or at least 40 other lawsuits in the State of Arizona, and the information is all in public records. The number of lawsuits someone has can be a good indication of this person or company's integrity and character. You may research Carlotti's litigation involvement in the superior court of Arizona records, and in the Justice Courts of Maricopa County.
Carlotti's litigation not only includes cases where they oppose other patients, but also other doctors, their CPA firm, their janitorial person, their bank, their home builder, their dental repair company, their HOA, their finance company for their laser equipment, ex-employees, commercial tenant, residential tenants, even two of their own law firms; the list is long. This information WAS NOT allowed during trial, even though they were suing for their alleged spotless reputation.
We were allowed to sneak in just a tidbit of mention of a couple lawsuits, and with doing so, Mrs. Carlotti claimed, under oath, that they actually were the winners in the cases. However, I have the signed judgments from the court (all public record), and the Carlotti's were in fact, not the winners in those cases as Mrs Carlotti said in court, under oath.
The law firm representing Carlotti during trial was law firm number 5 in the matter. I am not sure why the relationship with the first firm terminated. The second firm had to sue Carlotti. The third firm had to sue Carlotti. The fourth firm, as I am told, "withdrew for ethical reasons," and then finally came firm number five.
In February 2007, Carlotti performed three biopsies on my left arm.
Approx two weeks later in February 2007, my clinical notes list four biopsy results: the three for my arm, and surprisingly, one for my left cheek when a biopsy had not been performed on my cheek; in fact, no 4th biopsy was performed at that time, period.
This fabricated and supposed 4th biopsy result was the start of Carlotti's ruthless offense on me-- their carefully orchestrated manipulation of my medical records to cover up what they had done.
To not go on and on, I will spare readers of a more lengthy rebuttal and an overload of details, however, should Carlotti reply to this post, I will be happy to share all factual details regarding the situation and Carlotti's reason for changing my medical records, and I will cite more instances (with factual backup) of contradictions and falsifications in my clinical records.
To confirm here, however:
1. Three biopsies were performed approx Feb 5, 2007, on my left arm
2. Mention of the arm biopsies are in my clinical notes
3. Consent forms for arm biopsies are in my records
4. Consent payment forms for arm biopsies are in my records
5. I have paid receipts for the three biopsies.
6. Pathology reports from the lab are present for EACH of the three biopsies on the arm which identify each location on the arm.
7. None of the above exist for a cheek biopsy in February 2007, yet Carlotti's mysterious "cheek biopsy result" entered on February 18, is tucked in with the three actual arm biopsy results. No evidence of a biopsy taken, no record of a specimen sent to any lab for this alleged cheek biopsy, no path report to show said result, yet Carlotti typed into the record that there was a test result when this test had not been performed.
Without a pathology report, there cannot (and should not) be a biopsy result entered into a clinical note.
There are many instances like this in my clinical records. If Carlotti wants to blast "Sherry P" on the internet, I will respond with facts and details.
Pray with me that the appeal will go appropriately and these people will be separated from my life.
Remember, trials do not always turn out right.
Casey Anthony is on the street.
And I was punished with a multi-million dollar judgment against me for SPEAKING THE TRUTH in America, where I fear that our First Amendment rights have surely diminished, and that the almighty dollar in court is worth more than the truth.
----- Psalm 35 ------
The Carlotti Center
Scottsdale,Arizona,
Absolutely False Claim by Sherry P****
#6UPDATE Employee
Wed, May 08, 2013
A report has been filed against Dr. Albert and Dr. Michelle Carlotti in regards to a case that has already been tried in court. The Defendant Sherry P**** (espstore.com), was found to have acted with an "evil mind" by intending to cause injury, and that she was motivarted by spite and ill will.
Details of the trial are as follows:
After an 11 day trial with a unanimous jury verdict, the verdict was in favor of the plaintiffs, Dr. Michelle Cabret-Carlotti and Dr. Albert Carlotti.
Superior Court of Arizona
Maricopa County
CV 2008-010464
Filed 05/01/2013
Honorable Mark H. Brian
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs (Drs. Carlotti) and against the defendant (Sherry P****) in the amounts of $11,0000 in actual damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. In addition, plaintiffs are entitled to taxable costs in the amount of $9,489.96. None of which has been collected.
On record, the jury was absolutely entitled to determine that P**** was liable to plaintiffs on their defamation and false light claims (indeed, based on the evidence presented, the court would have been surprised if the jury did not find in plaintiff's favor). Likewise, the jury was absolutely entitle to find that plaintiffs were entitled to a punitive damages award-the evidence amply supported a finding that P**** acted with an "evil mind" by intending to cause injury, and that she was motivated by spite and ill will. The verdict did not result from passion or prejudice; it resulted from P****'s wrongful and vengeful acts. Accordingly, P****'s motions for a new trial, for judgement as a matter of law, for remittitur, and for relief from judgement are DENIED.
