2005 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 5-25-2005 

# M anley v . M ar an P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3152

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M anley v . M ar an" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1132. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1132NOT 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. 04- 3152

________________ CH AR L E S J . M ANL E Y, A ppel l ant v. JO E M A R A N ; JE R O M E T A Y L O R ; M A R C A N T H O N Y A R R IG O ; ST E V E N N E IL WHI T E ; DAVI D M . WEI S S M AN; M I CH AE L A. F OR E S T A; GE RA L D DUGA N;

M AR K C AJ E T AN C AVANA UGH; RO Y K. L I S KO

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

Fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 02- cv- 02504) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le W il li am G . B assler

________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 26, 2005 B efor e: R E N D E L L , A M B R O and FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: M ay25, 2005)

________________ OP I NI ON

________________ P E R C UR I AM C h a rle s J . M a n ley, a stu d e n t atte n d in g law sc h o o l in V irg in ia, f iled a su it pr o s e in t he U . S. D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey againstl aw y ers and l aw fi rm s, var i ous l yfr om Penns y l vani a orN ew J er s ey , thathe had e m pl oy ed t o r epr es enthi m i n a2

per s onal i nj ur ys ui t . B eca us e he c l ai m ed l egal m al pr act i ce, he w as r equi r ed t o pr ovi de an aff i davi tof m er i t , ori n t he al t ernat i ve, a s w orn s t at ement , i n compl i ance w i t h N ew J er s ey la w . O n A ugus t1, 2003, t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatM anl eyhad nots at i s fi ed the N ew J er s eys t atut or yr equi r ementfors ui t s agai ns tG er al d J . D ugan, M ark C . C avana ugh, t he l a w f i r m o f Du g a n , Br i n k ma n , M a g i n n i s a n d P a c e , Da v i d M . We i s s ma n , M i c h a e l A. For r es t a, and the l aw fi r m of D uB oi s , Sheehan, H ami l t on, and Levi n, and di s m i s s ed c l a i ms a g a i n s tt h e s e De f e n d a n t s . S o o n th e r e a f

t e r , th e Di s t r i c tCo u r td i s mi s s e d a l l c l a i ms agai ns tR oyL i s ko. O n D ece m ber3, 2003, M anl eym oved forr econs i der at i on of the A u g u st 1 , 2 0 0 3 o rd e r a n d f o r le a v e to f

ile a f f id a v its o f

m e rit nunc pr o t unc . I n t he interi m , D ef

en d an ts Joe M ara n , Jero m e T ay lor, the L aw O ff ices o f Je rom e T ay lor, M arc A nt onyA r r i go, and St even N ei l W hi t e moved t o di s m i s s the C om pl ai nt . I n an or der ent er ed on J une 25, 2004, aft eror al ar gum entand forr eas ons not ed on the r ecor d on J une 22, 2004, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed M anl ey ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on and mot i on for lea v e to f

ile a f f id a v its o f

m e rit nunc pr o t unc , and “be caus e ther e [w as ] no j us tr eas on for del ay , ” ent er ed fi nal j udgm entpur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 54( b) i n favor of G er al d J . D ugan, M ark C . C avana ugh, the l aw fi r m of D ugan, B r i nkm an, M agi nni s and Pace, D avi d M . W ei s s m an, M i chae l A . For r es t a, and the l aw fi r m of D uB oi s , Sheehan, Ha mi l t o n , a n d Le v i n . Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r ta l s o g r a n t e d th e mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s o f J e r o me T ay l or , t he Law O ffi ces of J er om e Tay l or , M ar c A nt onyA r r i go, and St even N ei l W hi t e, and “be caus e ther e [w as ] no j us tr eas on fordel ay , ” ent er ed fi nal j udgm enti n t hei rfavor a s w e ll. T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso d e n ied Jo e M a ra n ’s m o tio n to d ism iss . M a n ley ap p e a ls3

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e rs o f J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 4 . M anl ey ’ s appea l w i l l be di s m i s s ed forl ack of appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s R ul e 54( b) det erm i nat i ons w er e notpr oper . M anl ey ’ s cas e i nvol ves m u lt iple claim s an d p arti es. T h e issu es o n ap p ea l, w h ich re lat e to N ew Jerse y ’s st atuto ry r equi r ement s forl i t i gant s fi l i ng m al pr act i ce a ct i ons , ar e s epar at e fr om thos e cl ai m s the D i s t r i ctC our thad y ett o adj udi cat e and a r e thus di ffe r entfr om i s s ues thatw oul d be pr es ent ed i n anyappea l s t hatcoul d be br oughtl at er . H ow ever , an i m por t antunr es ol ved i s s ue comm on t o al l D efe ndant s underm i nes the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s expr es s det erm i nat i ons t hatt her e w as no j us tr eas on fordel ay . Speci fi cal l y , i ti s uncl eari f the D i s t r i ctC our thad s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n in d iv e rs ity o v e r M a n le y ’s le g a l m a lp ra c tic e c la im s . A lth o u g h there is som e e v iden ce o f d o m ici le i n the re co rd, suc h as M an ley ’s m ai l i ng addr es s i n V i r gi ni a and hi s phone numberw i t h a Penns y l vani a ar ea c ode, i ti s not s uffi ci entt o s how w hetherM anl eyi s a ci t i zen ordom i ci l i aryof V i r gi ni a orPenns y l vani a. S e e G ilb e rt v . D a v id , 235 U . S. 561, 569 ( 1915) . I ti s al s o uncl earw hetherM anl ey , an adul tl aw s tudenti n V i r gi ni a, i s a s tudents tudy i ng out s i de of hi s “home st at e. ” See Shis hko v. Stat e Farm I ns . C o. , 5 5 3 F . S u p p . 3 0 8 , 3 1 0 -1 1 (E .D . P a . 1 9 8 2 ), a ff’d , 722 F. 2d 7 3 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 3 ); B l ue v. N at ’ lFuel G as D is tr i but i on C or

p. , 437 F. Supp. 715, 718 (W .D . P a . 1 9 7 7 ), a

ff’d , 6 0 1 F .2 d 5 7 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 9 ); B r adl ey v . Zis s i m os , 721 F. Supp. 738, 739 n. 3 ( E . D . Pa. 1989) ; 15 J ER EMY C. M OO R E ET AL ., M OORE ’ S F E D E RA L P RACTI CE § 102. 37[6] (3d ed . 2 0 0 4 ). B eca us e M anl ey ’ s ci t i zens hi p i s notes t abl i s hed, the bas i s for t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on i s i n ques t i on. T he unr es ol ved ques t i on of4

s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on r ender s t he R ul e 54( b) cert i fi cat i ons i nval i d; thus , w e do not h a v e a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r t h is a p p e a l.