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 4-29-2010 

# P et e r E gnot ovich v

. Gree nfield T

wp S ewe r 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 . 10-1055

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_2010

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 2010 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 " P e t e r E gnot ovich v

. Gr e e nfie ld T

wp S ewe r " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1437. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1437D L D - 176 NOT 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. 10- 1055

___________ P E T E R R . E G N O T O V IC H ; S T E L L A E G N O T O V IC H ,

a n d th e i rm a r i t a l c o m m u n i t y, A p p e llan ts v . G R E E N F IE L D T O W N S H IP S E W E R A U T H O R IT Y , et a l; P A Y N E C O N S T R U C T IO N C O ., e t al; P E N N E A S T E N G R ., e t a l ; GR EENFI ELD TO W NSH I P, e ta l . ; FRATERN AL O RD ER OF P OL I CE ; HAR RY T . CO L E M AN; AB RA HAMS E N, M OR AN & C ONAB OY; J AM E S M UNL E Y; F E DE RA L J UDGE VANAS KI E ; E DWI N KOS I K; F E DE RA L J UDGE CONABOY ; BRUCE EVANS; RI CHARD J ULI A; TE RRANCE NEA LON ; W I LLI AM P. NEA LON ; PATRI CI A C OR BETT; CA RM EN M I NO RA ; S. J OH N C OTTO NE; ERN I E PREATE, J r . ; P AUL WALK E R; P E T E R P OVAND A; GE RA L D R US E K; L OR RA I NE RU S E K; E S T AT E OF J OS E P H R US E K; P AUL FO RT U N ER ; J O H N CE RR A ; J A M ES G A RD N ER CO LLI N S; DOR OT HY R US E K T RO T T E R; CA RL ON M. O' M AL L E Y, J R. ; L AC KAWANNA C OUNT Y P OL I T I CA L S UB DI VI S I ON OF T HE CO M M ONWE AL T H OF P E NNS YL VANI A; T HE CO M M ONWE AL T H OF P E NNS YL VANI A; T ODD O' M AL L E Y; J E RR Y L ANGAN ; ANDY J AR BO L A; T OM DUB AS ; DE T E CT I VE RO BE RT M AZ Z ONI ; P AUL M AZZ ONI ; ED RE NDELL ; GENE T ALE RI CO; M ARY M CA NDR E W; AM E L I A NI CO L E ; WANDA HAL L ADAY; L A U R A B O Y N A R S K Y ; W A L T E R C A S P E R , J R .; L A C K A W A N N A C O . C O U R T A D M IN IS T R A T O R , et a l; JO H N D O E S 1 -15 0 ; E S Q . JO H N Q . D U R K IN ; D A V ID KLEPAD LO; CA RL SHI NER ; PENN SYLV AN I A STA TE POLI CE; J OSEPH K OSI ERO W SKI , Tr o o p e r ; TRO OPER B O O S ; J O S E P H M IN E L L I; M IC H A E L B A R R E S S E , E S Q .; CH ESTE R T . H A RH U T; G EO RG E B ELL , J R. ; J O SEPH S LE BODNI K; DOU GLAS CLARK; KEVI N O' HARAT he Egnot ovi ches r efus ed t o pays ew erfee s and a c ol l ect i on act i on w as comm ence d 1 agai ns tt hem byt he Sew erA ut hor i t y . T he Egnot ovi ches m ai nt ai ned theynevers i gned a s ew ereas ementand di s put ed the authent i ci t yof Pet erE gnot ovi ch’ s s i gnatur e on a d o c u m e n t ti tled “ E a se m e n t an d R ig h t-o f -W a yA g re e m e n t” th a t w a s e x e c u ted o v e r tw e n ty 2 ____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 05- cv- 01818) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo h n E . Jo n es, II I

____________________________________ S u b m itted f

o r P o ssible D ism issal Pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 A pr i l 2 2, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 29, 2010)

OP I NI ON

P E R C UR I AM A ppel l ant s Pet erand St el l a Egnot ovi ch comm ence d a ci vi l act i on pr o s e i n U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s eeki ng m oneydamages and decl ar at or yand i nj unct i ve r el i ef f r om the G r eenf

i el d T ow ns hi p Sew erA uthor i t y , among ot herdefe ndant s . T he ac t i on, t he l at es tchapt eri n a dec ades - l ong s aga of l i t i gat i on, w as di s m i s s ed underFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) and the def endant s m oved for R u le 11 , F ed . R . C iv. Pro . , san cti o n s. O n S ep tem b er 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 , the D istri ct C o u rt 1y ear s ago.

W e al s o gr ant ed the Sew erA ut hor i t y ’ s R ul e 38, Fed. R . A pp. Pr o. , m ot i on for 2 s anct i ons on appea l i n t he amountof $1, 500. 3 aw ar ded R ul e 11 s anct i ons i n t he form of att orney s fee s t o G r eenf i el d T ow ns hi p i n t he amount of $5, 034. 34. T he Egnot ovi ches appea l ed, and w e di s m i s s ed the appe al forl ack of appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on as pr ematur e. O n J ul y7, 2007, the D i s t r i ctC our thel d t he E g n o to v ich e s in c o n tem p t f o r f a ilu re to p a yth e sa n c tio n s a n d o rd e re d th e m to p a yth e f u ll amount w i t hi n s i xt yday s . T he Egnot ovi ches appea l ed, and w e af fi r m ed the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or der s di s m i s s i ng t he amended compl ai ntand the R ul e 11 or deri m pos i ng s anct i ons i n t he amountof $5, 034. 34. See Egnot ovi ch v. G r eenf i el d T ow ns hi p Sew er A ut h. , 304 Fed. A ppx. 94, 98 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( “The D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yfound thatt he E gnot ovi ches fi l ed the l aw s ui ti n bad fa i t h and forthe purpos e of ha r as s m ent , and that th e yre so rte d to f

e d e ra l co u rt in a n im p e rm iss ib le a ttem p t to c o llate ra llya ttac k v a lid ly o b tai n ed stat e c o u rtjud g m en ts. ”). 2 A boutei ghtm ont hs aft erw e af fi r m ed, the Sew erA uthor i t ym oved i n t he di s t r i ct cour tforenfor cementof the R ul e 11 s anct i ons or der , cont endi ng thatthe Egnot ovi ches had fa i l ed t o payanypor t i on of the $5, 034. 34. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a hea r i ng on the enfor cementm ot i on atw hi ch the Egnot ovi ches appea r ed. T he courtobs erved thatthe E g n o to v ic h e s h a d n o t e v e n a tte m p te d to m a k e p a ym e n ts o n th e R u le 1 1 s a n c tio n s o rd e r. N . T . , 12/ 2/ 09, at4- 5. M r s . E gnot ovi ch conc eded thatpoi nt , s ee i d. at5, and then i m pr oper l yt r i ed t o r ear gue the mer i t s of the under l y i ng eas ementdi s put e, s ee H al derm an4

v. Pennhur s tSt at e School & H os pi t al , 673 F. 2d 628, 637 ( 3d C i r . 1982) ( i ti s s ett l ed that under l y i ng or derm aynotbe ca l l ed i nt o ques t i on i n pos t - j udgm entci vi l cont empt p roc ee d ing ). A tt he conc l us i on of the hea r i ng, the Egnot ovi ches w er e found i n cont empt . See N . T . , 12/ 2/ 09, at17- 18. T heyw er e gi ven the oppor tuni t yt o pur ge themsel ves of cont empt by( 1) m aki ng a paym entof $150. 00 byJ anuary13, 2010, s ee i d. at13- 14; and ( 2) agr eei ng t o s eek f

i nanci ng fr om a comm er ci al l enderbyD ece m ber31, 2009 i n or der t o payt he r emai nderof the $5, 034. 34, s ee i d. at14. T he Egnot ovi ches s t at ed atthe hear i ng t hatt hei rhom e i s w or t h $100, 000, and theyhave a hom e equi t yl oan of $33, 000, w h ich is c u rre n t. N .T ., 1 2 /2 /0 9 , at 7 . A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt re a so n e d th a t, beca us e theyhave e qui t yi n t hei rhom e, theys houl d be abl e t o fi nance a l oan i n t he amount of $5, 000. I f theyw er e unabl e t o obt ai n fi nanci ng, theyw oul d have t o gi ve a m or t gage on thei rpr oper t yt o t he Sew erA uthor i t y , s ee i d. at14. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued an or der , ent er ed on D ece m ber3, 2009, gr ant i ng the m ot i on forenfor cementand fi ndi ng t he Egnot ovi ches i n cont empt of the Sept ember , 2006 O r deraw ar di ng R ul e 11 s anct i ons i n the amountof $5, 034. 34. I n acc or dance w i t h an agr eementr eac hed dur i ng t he enf or cementhear i ng, the Egnot ovi ches w oul d pur ge th e m se lv e s o f

c o n tem p t b y : (1 ) p a y in g $ 1 5 0 .0 0 b yJa n u a ry1 3 , 2 0 1 0 ; an d (2 ) “ e x p re ss ly foll ow [i ng ] the ag reem ent m ade o n the r ecord at the D ecem ber 2, 20 09 heari ng , ” or el se t heyw oul d have t o s ur r endert o t he cus t odyof the U . S. M ar s hal ata t i m e and pl ace t o beW her e a c ont emnor c om pl i es w i t h al l as pect s of a c ont empt or derand thus pur ges 3 hi m s el f of c ont empt , t he cont empt or deri s m ootand unr evi ew abl e. M cD onal d’ s C orp. v. V i ct or yI nves t m ent s , 727 F. 2d 82, 85 ( 3d C i r . 1984) . Fol l ow i ng t aki ng thi s appea l , the E g n o to v ich e s m a d e th e $ 1 5 0 .0 0 p a ym e n t, ac c o rd in g to item s s u b se q u e n tlysu b m itt e d in th e d istric t co u rt, b u t th e re is n o in d ica tio n th a t th e yh a v e e ith e r o b tain e d f in a n c in g to c o v e r th e re m a in d e r o f

th e sa n c tio n s o r g iv e n th e S e w e r A u th o ritya se c u rityin ter e st in t hei rpr oper t y . A ccor di ngl y , i tdoes notappea rthatthe appe al i s m oot , and the part i es h a v e n o t ad v ise d u s th a t th e a p p e a l is m o o t. 5 det erm i ned. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o deni ed a mot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el pr evi ous l yfi l ed byt he Egnot ovi ches . T he Egnot ovi ches fi l ed a not i ce of appea l fr om t he o rd e rs f in d in g th e m in c o n te m p t a n d d e n y in g th e m c o u n s e l. O urC l erk gr ant ed them l eave t o appea l i n form a paupe r i s and advi s ed thatthe ap p ea l w as su b

ject t o su m m aryd ism issal un d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) or su m m ary a f f irm a n c e u n d e r T h ird C ir. L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . T h e E g n o to v ich e s w e re in v ited to s ubm i ta w r i t t en r es pons e, butt heyhave notdone s o. T heyhave f i l ed a mot i on for appoi nt m entof couns el on appea l . T he Sew erA uthor i t yhas fi l ed a Rul e 38, Fed. R . A pp. Pr o. , m ot i on fordamages and cos t s , s eeki ng at t orney s fee s i n t he amountof $1, 500. 00. W e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff

i r m t he or der s of the D i s t r i ctC our tbeca us e no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on i s pr es ent ed byt hi s appea l , T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt he pos t - j udgm entor der s under28 U . S. C . § 1291. A ci vi l cont empt 3 o rd e r is d e sig n e d to b e c o e rc iv e ; th e c o n tem n o r n e e d o n lyc o m p lyw ith th e o rd e r to a v o id bei ng j ai l ed. See C hadw i ck v. J anec ka, 312 F. 3d 597, 608 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng G o m p e rs v . B u c k ’s S to v e & R a n g e C o ., 2 2 1 U .S . 4 1 8 , 4 4 1 -4 2 (1 9 1 1 )) . A c c o rd in g ly, aparty ’s com plet e fi nan ci al i nab i l i t yt o co m plyw i t h an order t o p aysanct i on s i s a defen se

t o a cha r ge of c i vi l cont empt . See H i cks v. Fei ock, 485 U . S. 624, 638 n. 9 ( 1988) . T he a lleg e d c o n tem n o r b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f p ro d u c in g e v id e n c e o f

h is in a b ili tyto c o m p lyw ith th e s a n c tio n s o rd e r. S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . R y la n d e r, 4 6 0 U .S . 7 5 2 , 7 5 7 (1 9 8 3 ). T he Egnot ovi ches fai l ed t o s how a compl et e i nabi l i t yt o paythe s anct i ons . T he r ecor d es t abl i s hes t hatt heyhave s uffi ci entequi t yi n t hei rhom e t o be abl e t o paythe s anct i on i n i ns t al l m ent s , t heyar e curr enton t hei rexi s t i ng hom e equi t yl oan, and an i ns t al l m entpl an w as acc ept abl e t o the Sew erA uthor i t y . T he Egnot ovi ches had the bur den of c om i ng forw ar d i n t he cont empt pr ocee di ng w i t h evi dence thattheym ade r eas onabl e ef

for t s t o compl yw i t h t he s anct i ons or der , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. M i l l s t one E nt erpr i s es , I nc. , 864 F. 2d 21, 23 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( ci t i ng H al derm an, 864 F. 2d at23) , but t heym ade no s uch ef

for t , and thus a fi ndi ng thattheyw er e i n cont empt w as pr oper . T he D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd e ter m in e d th a t th e yw e re n o t en tit led to a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n se l. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the or der s of the D i s t r i ct C our tfi ndi ng t he Egnot ovi ches i n cont empt forfai l i ng t o paythe R ul e 11 s anct i ons and deny i ng t hei rm ot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el . T he appe l l ant s ’ m ot i on forappoi nt m ent o f c o u n s e l o n a p p e a l a n d th e S e w e r A u th o ri ty’s R u le 3 8 m o tio n a re b o th d e n ie d .

6