CLD
- 226 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 13

- 1010

___________ DEBRA PORTER , Appellant

v. TD BANK N.A., f/n/a Commerce Bank, N.A.

____________________________________ On Appeal from the Uni ted States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2:10

- cv - 07243 ) District Judge: Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr.

____________________________________ Submitted on the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and for Possible S ummary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 May 2, 2013 Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and SHWARTZ , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : June 3, 2013 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM As we write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the f acts, we will not repeat the District Court’s thorough description of the events that led to this litigation. We will merely summarize that Debra Porter sought a declaration that her unrecorded2 mortgage on a property had priority status over a mortgage th at TD Bank, N.A. (“TD Bank) 1

TD Bank and Pardes sought summary judgment on the ba sis that Porter was barred from claiming priority over TD Bank’ s mortgage in light of a ruling from t he Pennsylvania Superior Court. The District Court granted the motion, and denied Porter’s subsequent motion for reconsideration and request for leave to amend her complaint

. Porter filed a notice of appeal and an ap plication to proceed in forma pauperis , which we grant. TD Bank and Pardes urge us to summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment while Porter argues that we should vacate it. held on the property , and the Pardes Group (“Pardes”), the third

- party purchaser of the property, intervened

.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the deci sion granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants is plenary. See Abramson v. William Patterson Col l. , 260 F.3d 265, 276 (3d Cir. 2001). We review the order denying the motion for reconsideration and the request for leave to amend for abuse of di scretion.
See Koshatka v. Phila. Newspapers, Inc. , 762 F.2d 329, 333 (3d Cir. 1985); Lake v. Arnold , 232 F.3d 360, 373 (3d Cir. 2000). Upon review, because no substantial que stion is presented on appeal, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

1 As the District Court noted, TD Bank is the successor to Commerce Bank, N.A., which was involved in the events underlying this litigation.3 The defendants asked the District Court to give preclusive effect to the Pennsylv a nia Superior Court’s holding that Porter “is collaterally e stopped from arguing that her unrecorded mortgage of July 20, 2005, has a priority position over [TD Bank’s] August 25, 2005 loan.” Commerce Bank, N.A. v. Porterra, LLC , No. 713 EDA 2011, slip op. at 12

- 13 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 10, 2012) (nonprecedential opinion) (Ex. B to Pardes’s Motion for Summary Judg ment). A s the District Court explained, “Congress has specifically required all federal courts to give preclusive effect to state

- court judgments whenever the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged would do
so.” Allen v. McCurry , 449 U.S. 9 0, 96 (1980) (citing the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738). The requirement extends to a federal court’s treatment of a state

- court determination about the conclusive effect of a judgment. Cf. Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank , 474 U.S . 518, 525 (1986). The District Court properly stated and applied Pennsylvania’s rules regarding the preclusive effect of prior state court judgments

. See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, Inc. , 571 F.3d 299, 310 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Rue v. K

- Mart Corp. , 713 A.2d 82, 84 (Pa. 1998) )

. We agree with its analysis and conclude that t here is no genuine issue of material fact regarding wh ether Porter could relitigate the issue of the priority of her unrecorded mortgage over TD Bank’s mortgage in li ght o f the Pennsylvania court’s ruli ng. Accordingly, the District Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of4 the defendants. The District Court also properly denied reconsideration, and , in light of Porter’s delay in seeking to amend her complai nt, properly denied leave to amend. 2 For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. 3

2 We recognize, as the District Court did, that there is evidence that Porter’s former business partner may have purposely caused her mortgage not to be recorded, and we also are aware that Porter makes claims of wrongdoing by TD Bank (which TD Bank disputes). However, we agree with the District Court that the evidence and allegations do not rise to the level of “manifest injustice,” Max’s Seafood Café by Lou

- Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros , 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (setting forth the bases for reconsideration) , to merit reconsideration under the circumstances of this case, where Porter had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in state court. We note, also, that although it is unclear whether she has been, or will be, able to collect on it, Porter won a multi

- million dollar judgment (against other defendants) in state court litigation related to this matter.

3 As we noted above, we grant her motion to proceed in forma pauperis

.