NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ Nos. 17-2737 and 17-3254 _____________ VLADKA KOCH, individually; *EUROVID FKK; *HELIOS NATURA; *EUROPA DOCU-SEARCH, S.R.O.; *EUROVIDFKK, S.R.O., Appellant v. VRATISLAV PECHOTA, JR., Esq., individually; LAW OFFICE OF VRATISLAV PECHOTA JR, Esq.; JEFFREY A. HELEWITZ, individually *Dismissed pursuant to Clerk's Order dated 8/25/17. ______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civ. Action No. 3-16-cv-3637) District Judge: Honorable Brian R. Martinotti ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) April 20, 2018 ______________ Before: GREENAWAY, JR., RENDELL, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: July 30, 2018) _______ OPINION** _______ ** This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge. Vladka Koch appeals the District Court’s denial of her motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery (No. 17-2737) and the subsequent dismissal of her complaint (No. 17-3254). For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm. I. BACKGROUND This case has a long and tortured history, beginning with the relationship between Vladka and Robert Koch, and involving multiple state and federal court cases.1 Beginning in 1991, the Kochs were business partners, establishing and operating an “enterprise . . . composed of several interdependent Czech and USA business entities” that “promot[ed] naturism (nudism) through various media and actions worldwide.”2 App. 32-33 (footnote omitted). Ms. Koch, a citizen of the Czech Republic, and Mr. Koch, a United States citizen, resided in the Czech Republic before and after their marriage in 2000. That same year, the Kochs retained Vratislav Pechota, Jr., Esq. and the Law Office of Vratislav Pechota, Jr., Esq. (collectively, “Pechota”) as immigration counsel to apply for and obtain legal permanent resident (“LPR”) status for Ms. Koch. In 2002, Ms. Koch obtained conditional status as an LPR, which would expire in two years. 1 Some of the prior litigation occurred in: Koch v. Pechota, 1:10-cv-09152 –RWS (S.D.N.Y.); Koch v. Sheresky, Index No. 112337/2007 (Sup. Ct. New York County); and Koch v. Koch, Index No. 1805/2004 (Sup. Ct. Westchester County). 2 The Kochs established Europa Docu-Search, Inc.; Eurovid, Inc.; Eurovid FKK; Helios Natura; Europa Docu-Search s.r.o.; and EurovidFKK, s.r.o. These business entities were joint plaintiffs with Ms. Koch, but were voluntarily dismissed from the appeal. 2 In 2003, Mr. Koch separated from Ms. Koch and moved to the United States where he successfully sued her for divorce in the Supreme Court of New York. That court, however, vacated the divorce decree in May 2007 due to, among other things, Mr. Koch’s fraudulent misrepresentations to the court. In 2008, Ms. Koch was awarded custody of their child, sole ownership of their business entities, child support, alimony/spousal support, and $25 million to be paid by Mr. Koch. In June 2007, in the Supreme Court of New York, Ms. Koch sued various attorneys for fraud and malpractice allegedly committed during the divorce proceedings (“State Action”). Pechota, while not a defendant in the State Action, was ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals