2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-22-2010 

# R ich ard S n yde r v . C arol yn Swanson P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3164

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " R ich a r d S n yde r v . C ar o lyn Swa n s on" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1674. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1674NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3164

___________ RI CHARD SNYDER, A ppel l ant

v. CA RO L YN S WANS ON Per s onal R epr es ent at i ve Est at e of G eor ge Sw ans on, C a ro lyn S w a n so n a n d R o b e rt S w a n so n ; CA RO L YN S WANS ON; GE OR GE S WANS ON

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 08- cv- 00880) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G r egoryM . Sl eet

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February16, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , FU E N T E S and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 22, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pr o s e appe l l antR i char d Sny derappea l s fr om t he or derof the U ni t ed St at es Di s t r i c tCo u r tf

o rt h e Di s t r i c to f

De l a wa r e d i s mi s s i n g h i s c o mp l a i n t . W e wi l l a f f i r m.

### 2

O n N ovember 24, 2008, Sny derfi l ed hi s compl ai nti n D i s t r i ctC our t , nami ng as defe ndant s C ar ol yn Sw ans on, per s onal r epr es ent at i ve of the es t at e of G eor ge Sw ans on; Ca r o l yn S wa n s o n ; a n d Ro b e r tS wa n s o n . Ac c o r d i n g t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s , t h e ma t t e rs t e ms fr om a frus t r at ed r eal es t at e contr act , and Sny derhas a hi s t or yof l i t i gat i on w i t h t he d ef en d an ts i n stat e a n d fe d era l cou rt s. S n y d er so u g h t t o h av e p ri o r st ate a n d fe d era l cou rt rul i ngs vaca t ed s o t hathe coul d pr ocee d on hi s cl ai m s i n fede r al cour t , and he r eques t ed a j ur yt r i al . Sum m ons w as i s s ued t o at t or neyW al t erW . G r een, a non- par t y , and w as r etur ned as exec ut ed. O n M ar ch 30, 2009, t he D i s t r i ctC our tor der ed Sny dert o s how caus e w hyt he ca s e s houl d notbe di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o s erve underR ul e 4( m ) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. Sny derfi l ed a r es pons e, cont endi ng, among ot her th in g s, th a t G re e n a n d h is lim ited liab ili tyc o m p a n yh a v e re p re se n ted th e d e f e n d a n ts in ot herm at t er s r el at i ng t o hi s cas e. A t t ache d t o Sny der ’ s r es pons e w as a l et t erfr om G r een dat ed M ar ch 19, 2009, i nfor m i ng Sny dert hatatno t i m e di d he agr ee t o acc epts ervi ce on C ar ol yn Sw ans on’ s behal f and thatt he pr oces s s erverdi d notper s onal l ys erve G r een but i ns t ead s er ved a s ecr et aryi n hi s offi ce. N evert hel es s , Sny derar gued thats ervi ce w as pr operon G r een a s t he def endant s ’ agent . A l t ernat i vel y , Sny derr eques t ed l i m i t ed di s coveryt o es t abl i s h t he fa ct s cont ai ned i n hi s pr oces s s erver ’ s aff i davi t , or , an add i t i on al si xtyday s t o co m plet e ser vice on t he d efen dan t s’ at t orney s. O n J une 11, 2009, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed Sny der ’ s cont ent i ons and det erm i ned t hatSny derhad nots erved the def endant s pr oper l yunderR ul e 4. Fur t her , t he D i s t r i ctI tappea r s fr om Sny der ’ s compl ai ntt hathi s l aw s ui ti s bas ed on an unde r l y i ng r eal 1 e sta te d e a l th a t is th e su b jec t o f a law su it h e f

iled a g a in st th e d e f

e n d a n ts in M a ry lan d sta te cour ti n 2002. B eca us e i tal s o appea r s t hatt he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons on hi s cl ai m s has run, w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al w i t houtpr ej udi ce i s a fi nal deci s i on. See A hm ed v. D r agovi ch, 297 F. 3d 201, 207 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng t hatan or derdi s m i s s i ng a cl ai m w i t houtpr ej udi ce i s a fi nal appea l abl e or deri f the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons fort hat cl ai m has expi r ed) . See al s o 

### Md. Code § 5- 101 . 

### 3 C our tfound thatSny derhad made no at t empt s t o eff ectpr opers ervi ce upon r ece i vi ng G ree n ’s l ett er o r up o n rec eivin g the o rde r t o sh o w ca u se. T h u s, the D istri ct C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t S n y d e r h a d n o t d e m o n stra ted g o o d c a u se f o r h is f a ilu re to se rv e h is compl ai nton t he def

endant s and di s m i s s ed the ca s e underR ul e 4( m ) . Sny derfi l ed a t i m el ym ot i on forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed byor derent er ed J une 30, 2009. Sny derappea l s . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew 1 the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er f o r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . S ee P etruc ell i v. B o h ri n g er & R at zi ng er, 46 F . 3d 12 98 , 13 08 (3d C i r. 19 95 ). U nd er R ule 4( m ), t he D i stri ctC ou rtm ust fi rs tdeterm i ne w hethergo od cause ex i st s for fai l ure t o serve. Id. at13 05 . If goo d cau se exi s t s , t he D i s t r i ctC our tm us text end the t i m e fors ervi ce. I d. I f good ca us e does not exi s t , t he D i s t r i ctC our thas di s cr et i on ei t hert o di s m i s s t he compl ai ntw i t houtpr ej udi ce or t o ext end the t i m e fors ervi ce. I d. W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t S n y d e r h a s n o t sh o w n g o o d c a u se f o r h is fai l ur e t o s erve. Sny der ’ s m ai n ar gum enti s t hathe pr oper l ys erved the def endant s by ser ving G reen, con t end i ng t hat G reen w as aut ho ri zed to accept s ervi ce as t he d efen dan t s’

### 4

a g e n t u n d e r R u le 4 (e ). S n y d e r b a se s h is a ss e rtio n o n G re e n ’s h a v in g a c ted a s c o u n se l in pr i orl i t i gat i on. T her e i s no s how i ng t hatG r een w as expr es s l y“author i zed by ap p o intm en t or b ylaw ” a s R u le 4(e ) co n tem p lat es. R athe r, S n y d er a rgu es th at G ree n ’s a u th o rityto a c c e p t se rv ice is im p lied . W e d o n o t cr e d it th is a rg u m e n t o f im p lied a u th o rity w hen the r ecor d s how s t hatG r een hi m s el f expr es s l yand unambi guous l yi nfor m ed Sny der t hathe di d notagr ee t o acc epts er vi ce. M or eover , fr om t he document s Sny ders ubm i t t ed in su p p o rt o f

h is re sp o n se to th e D istric t C o u rt’s s h o w c a u se o rd e r, as w e ll as sta tem e n ts m ade i n Sny der ’ s br i ef, i ti s uncont es t ed thatt he pr oces s s erverdi d notper s onal l ys er ve G re e n a n d in ste a d se rv e d a se c re tar yp re se n t in G re e n ’s o f f ice . S n y d e r’s a rg u m e n ts r egar di ng t he pr opr i etyof s ervi ce de l i ver ed t o a s ecr et aryi n G r een’ s offi ce f ar es no b ett er. Sn y d er a rgu ed in h is r esp o n se to the s h o w ca u se o rde r th at t h e p roc ess s erv er’s han ding t he sum m on s and co m plai nt t o G reen vi a t he secret ary–an em ploy ee of G reen’ s, orof D ani el s & G r een, L . L . C . –cons t i tut es pr opers ervi ce on both G r een a nd t he l i m i t ed l i abi l i t ycompanyof w hi ch G r een i s a mem ber . H ow ever , Sny deri s nots ui ng G r een or t he L. L . C . ; he i s s ui ng t he def endant s named i n t he compl ai nt . T hus , i ti s i r r el evant w h ethe r serv ice c o u ld b e d ee m ed p rop er a s to G ree n o r th e c o m p an y . W e a re un persuaded byS ny der’ s r el i ance o n thi s setof f act s. For s i m i l arr eas ons , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n di s m i s s i ng t he compl ai ntr athert han ext endi ng t he t i m e fors ervi ce. See M C I T el ecomm uni cat i ons C o rp. v. T elec o n ce p ts, Inc . , 7 1 F . 3 d 1 0 8 6 , 1 0 9 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). A s the D istri ct C o u rtT hatSny der ’ s cl ai m m aybe t i m e- barr ed, s ee s upr a not e 1, does notal t erour 2 a n a ly sis . T h e e x p ira tio n o f th e sta tu te o f

lim itatio n s d o e s n o t re q u ire a d istric t co u rt to ext end the t i m e fors er vi ce; t he courthas di s cr et i on t o di s m i s s t he ca s e eve n i f the r efi l i ng of the ac t i on i s t i m e- barr ed. See M C I T el ecomm uni cat i on C orp. , 71 F. 3d at1098 ( ci t i ng P etruc ell i, 4 6 F . 3 d at 13 0 6 ). 

### 5 not ed, al t hough Sny deri s pr ocee di ng pr o s e, byhi s ow n acc ount , he i s an expe r i ence d l i t i gant . Fur t her , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdul ycons i der ed thatSny derm ade no a t t empt t o s er ve t he d efen dan t s properl yaft er r ecei ving G reen’ s l et t er oraft er r ecei ving t he sho w cause or der . Sny derar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o cons i derhi s r eques tt o ext end the t i m e foreff

ect i ng s er vi ce. I n fac t , t he D i s t r i ctC our tr ecogni zed Sny der ’ s r eques tfor addi t i onal t i m e. ( See J une 3, 2009 M em. O r derat2. ) M or eover , i n hi s r es pons e t o t he s how caus e or der , Sny deremphat i cal l yar gued thats ervi ce a l r eadyw as acc om pl i s hed pr oper l y . I n s eeki ng an ext ens i on of t i m e t o compl yw i t h R ul e 4, Sny ders t at ed hi s i nt ent “t o agai n s erve thes e att or ney s w ho al w ay s have, and cont i nue t o, r epr es entdefe ndant s . ” (R e sp o n se to S h o w C a u se O rd e r a t 6 .) G iv e n th a t S n y d e r’s re q u e st to e x ten d th e tim e to s er ve the compl ai ntactual l yevi dence d hi s r efus al t o eff ects ervi ce on the def

endant s and h is c o n tin u e d p u rsu it t o se rv e G re e n , w e v iew d ism iss in g th e c o m p lain t as a n a p p ro p ria te exer ci s e of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s cr et i on. W e al s o di s cern no err ori n t he D i s t r i ct 2 C our t ’ s deni al of Sny der ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. W e w ill a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.