2009 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 Third C irc uit 10-30-2009 

# Rob e rt Ja ckson v

. U S B ankruptcy C t P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3186

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 2009 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Ro be r t Ja cks on v

. U S B ankrupt c y C t " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 345. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009/3451 B L D - 003 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. 09- 3186

___________ RO BE RT S . J AC KS ON, A ppel l ant

v. U S B A N K R U P T C Y C O U R T ; JU D G E JU D ITH K F ITZ G E R A L D ; R O N D A J. W I N N E C O U R , C hapt er13 T rus t ee, byand thr ough heras s i s t ant s , agent s , and r e pr e s e nt a t i ve s ; RU SSELL SA N D ER S; M A Y , LO N G & SA N D ER S, ET A L. ; J O SEPH A. GO LDB ECK ; GO LDB ECK , M CCA FF ERTY & M CK EEVER; AN DR EW STON E; S T ONE & S T ONE , E T AL . ; J OHN B US S ; CO UNT Y OF AL L E GHE NY; CO UR T OF CO M M ON P L E AS OF AL L E GHE NY C OUNT Y; J UDGE J UDI T H A. F RI E DM AN; M I C H A E L L A M B ; W I L L I A M M U L L E N ; C O U N T R Y W I D E H O M E L O A N S I N C . , by

and thr ough i t s corpor at e off i cer s , agent s and r epr es ent at i ves

____________________________________ 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 W e ste rn 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. 2: 07- cv- 01288 D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D on et t a W . A m brose

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T h ir d C ir c u it L .A .R . 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

O ct ober1, 2009 B efor e: M cK E E , R E N D E L L and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober30, 2009)2 _________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A p p e llan t R o b e rt S . Ja c k so n a p p e a ls a M a rc h 9 , 2 0 0 9 , o rd e r d ism iss in g h is compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 41( b) and a June 24, 2009, or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r eopen the pr ocee di ngs . W e conc l ude thatthe appe al does n o t p re s e n t a s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n a n d w ill s u m m a ri ly af f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e rs . See 3d C i r . L . A . R . 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe bene fi tof the part i es , w e w i l l l i m i tourdi s cus s i on to th o s e f

a c ts re le v a n t to o u r d e c is io n . J acks on cl ai m s t o be the vi ct i m of an a l l egedl y“fr audul entm ort gage s cheme” by C ountryw i de H om e Loans, I nc. ( “C ountryw i de”) . A ppar ent l y , J acks on, C ountryw i de, and other s have be en enga ged i n s t at e and f eder al l i t i gat i on fory ear s , i ncl udi ng bankrupt cypr ocee di ngs i n the U ni t ed St at es B ankrupt cyC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof P e n n s y lv a n ia . S e e In re : R o b e rtS . J a c k s o n , B a n k ru p tc yN o . 0 4 -3 5 9 5 3 (B a n k r. W .D . P a .). A m o n g o ther thin g s, in tho se p roc ee d ing s, Jac k so n so u g h t t o h av e the B an k rup tcyC o u rt vaca t e a s t at e courtpr opertyfor ecl os ur e thatC ountryw i de had obt ai ned aga i ns thi m . T he B ankrupt cyC our tdeni ed the cl ai m forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on, di r ect ed J acks on t o pur s ue r el i ef i n s t at e court , and ul t i m at el ydi s m i s s ed the mat t eron Sept ember25, 2006. J acks on3

d id n o t f ile a n a p p e a l f

ro m th e B a n k ru p tc yC o u rt ’s S e p te m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 , d is m is s a l. N ear l yone y earl at er , J acks on i ni t i at ed thi s pr o s e ac t i on i n U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a byfi l i ng a pl eadi ng ent i t l ed “M ot i on for R eli ef fro m Ju d g m en t. ” In it , Jac k so n claim s tha t th e B an k rup tcyC o u rtp roc ee d ing s w ere fr audul entand i ncons i s t entw i th due pr oces s and thatthe B ankrupt cyC ourt ’ s j udgm ent s h o u ld b e s e t a s id e a s “ v o id ” u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (b ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tconvert ed J acks on’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on i nt o a compl ai nt . T hr ee group s of de fend ants separat el yfi l ed m oti on s t o d i sm i ss. D espi t e tw o ex t ensi on s, Jac k so n fa il ed to resp o n d to an yo f th e m o ti o n s. O n O ctob er 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istri ct C o u rt g ra n ted th e th re e m o tio n s to d ism iss a n d sc h e d u led a sta tu s c o n f e re n c e . Ja c k so n f

a iled to a p p e a r a t th e c o n f

e re n c e a n d d id n o t c o n ta c t th e D is tr ic t C o u rtto e x p la in h is a b s e n c e . A c c o rd in g ly , o n M a rc h 9 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istric t C o u rt issu e d a su a sp o n te o rd e r p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . C iv . P . 4 1 (b ). T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n sid e re d Ja c k so n ’s c a se u n d e r P o u lis v . S tate F arm F i re & C as. C o. , 74 7 F . 2d 86 3, 86 8 (3d C i r. 19 84 ), and con cl ud ed thatthe case sh o u ld b e d ism iss e d f

o r f a ilu re to p ro se c u te. T h e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r e x p re ss ly perm i t t ed Jack son thi rtyday s i n w hich t o seek to reopen the m at t er. Jackson did not do so
w i thi n the al l ot t ed t i m e. M or e than thr ee mont hs aft erthe D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s or der , J acks on m oved t o r eopen hi s cas e, cl ai m i ng thathe had be en unabl e t o t i m el yfi l e a mot i on t o r eopen due t o the pr opertyfor ecl os ur e and otherper s onal ci r cumst ance s . H e al s o fi l ed a not i ce r efl ect i ngJ acks on fi l ed hi s not i ce of appea l 137 day s aft erthe D i s tr i ctC ourtent er ed the 1 di s m i s s al or derpur s uantt o R ul e 41( b) . T he appe al ther efor e i ni t i al l yappea r s t o be u n ti m elyas to that o rde r. S ee F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 (a)(1). H o w ev er, th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s d is m is s a l w a s n o t “ s e t o u t in a s e p a ra te d o c u m e n t” a s re q u ir e d b yF e d . R . C iv . P . 5 8 (a ). See I n r e C endantC orp. Sec. L i t i g. , 454 F. 3d 235, 241 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . A s a r es ul t , for purpos es of fi l i ng an appe al , the j udgm entw as notform al l yent er ed unt i l 150 day s aft er M a rc h 9 , 2 0 0 9 . S e e F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 8 (c )(2 )(B ); L e B o o n v . L a n c a ste r Je w ish C o m m u n ity C e n terA ss ’n , 5 0 3 F .3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 4 -2 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). A c c o rd in g ly , Ja c k so n tim e ly appea l ed thator der . T he fa ctthatJ acks on appea l ed bef or e the form al entryof j udgm ent does notpr eventus fr om ent ert ai ni ng the appe al . See LeB oon, 503 F. 3d at224, n. 5; Fed. R . A p p . P . 4 (a)(2), 4(a)(7 )(B ). 4 thathi s m ai l i ng addr es s had cha nged. T he D i s tr i ctC ourtdeni ed the mot i on t o r eopen a s u n ti m ely , n o ti n g that itw as Ja ck so n ’s firstatt em p t t o co m m u n icate w ith the D istri ct C o u rt in m o re th a n o n e y e a r. J a c k s o n th e n f

ile d a p ro s e n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. II. Ja c k so n se e k s re v iew o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 , o rd e r d e n y in g h is m ot i on t o r eopen, and the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s M ar ch 9, 2009, or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s cas e for f a ilu re to p ro se c u te p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . C iv . P . 4 1 (b ). W e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 1 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s deci s i ons forabus e of di s cr et i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. C ow ar d, 296 F. 3d 176, 180 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( m ot i on t o r eopen) ; E m er s on v . T h ie l C o lle g e , 2 9 6 F .3 d 1 8 4 , 1 9 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( d is m is s a l f o r f a ilu re to p ro s e c u te ). W e m aysu m m aril yaf

firm if th is ap p ea l prese n ts no su b stan ti al qu esti o n . S ee 3 d C ir . L . A . R . 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. T o d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlye x e rc ise d its d isc re tio n w h e n it5

d ism issed Jac k so n ’s co m p lai n t, w e m u st co n side r th e m an n er in w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rt b a l a n c e d th e f

o l l o w i n g s i x c o n s i d e r a t i o n s : ( 1 ) J a c k s o n ’ s p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i ty; (2) p rejud ice to h is ad v ersa ri es; (3) a n yh ist o ryo f d il atorine ss; ( 4 ) w h ethe r th e Ja ck so n ’s c o n d u c t w a s in b a d f

a ith ; (5 ) th e e f

f e c tiv e n e ss o f

a ltern a tiv e sa n c tio n s; a n d (6 ) th e m e rit of hi s cl ai m . See Poul i s , 747 F. 2d at868. W e mustdet erm i ne both w hetherthe D i s tr i ct C o u rtp rop erlyb alan ce d thes e f ac tors an d w h ethe r th e re co rd su p p o rt s the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fin d ing s. S ee L ivera v . F ir st N at. S tat e B an k o f N ew Jerse y , 8 7 9 F . 2 d 1 1 8 6 , 1 1 9 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). H er e, the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatthe Poul i s fac t or s w ei gh i n favorof d ism issal of

the c o m p lai n t. S p ec ifi ca ll y , the D istri ct C o u rtd eterm ined that: ( 1 ) as a p ro s e pl ai nt i ff, J acks on al one w as per s onal l yr es pons i bl e forhi s fai l ur e t o pr os ecut e the ca s e; (2 ) Ja c k so n c a u se d p re

ju d ice to h is a d v e rsa rie s, sp e c if ica llyb yc a u sin g th e d e f e n d a n ts to a p p e a r a sta tu s c o n f

e re n c e th a t h e f

a iled to a tten d , an d g e n e ra llyb yc a u sin g th e m to defe nd agai ns ta cl ai m “br oughtbyan unr es pons i ve, unr eac habl e party ”; ( 3) J acks on had a hi s t oryof di l at or i nes s , s peci fi cal l ys how n byhi s fai l ur e t o r es pond t o the thr ee mot i ons t o di s m i s s aft erbei ng gr ant ed thr ee e xt ens i ons of t i m e t o perm i thi m t o do s o; ( 4) the D i s tr i ctC our tw as unabl e t o concl ude thatJ acks on w as act i ng i n bad fa i th; and ( 5) no others anct i on w oul d be ef fec t i ve, becaus e fi nanci al s anct i ons w oul d be fut i l e ( J acks onT he dec i s i on thatm onet arys anct i ons ar e notappr opr i at e fa l l s w i thi n the D i s tr i ct 2 C our t ’ s di s cr et i on and i s ent i t l ed t o thi s C our t ’ s defe r ence . See M i ndek v. R i gatt i , 964 F . 2 d 1 3 6 9 , 1 3 7 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). W e not e that , underPoul i s , a D i s tr i ctC ourtas s es s es the mer i t s of a c l ai m underthe 3 s ame st andar d as a R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di s m i s s . See B r i s coe, 538 F. 3d at263. H er e, the D i s tr i ctC our thad al r eadygr ant ed the thr ee gr oups of def endant s ’ unoppos ed mot i ons t o di s m i s s pur s uantt o R ul es 12( b) ( 1) and 12( b) ( 6) and, t o thatext entatl eas t , concl uded th a t Ja c k so n ’s c laim s la c k e d m e rit. M o re o v e r, w e e x p re ss se rio u s d o u b t o v e r th e m e rits of J acks on’ s cl ai m , w hi ch appe ar s t o be l i t t l e more than an unt i m el yeff ortt o s eek a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f

a Ba n k ru p t c yCo u r tj u d g me n t . S e e Ba n k r . R. 8 0 0 2 ( a ) ( t e n d a yt i me forfi l i ng a not i ce of

appea l fr om entryof a Bankrupt cyC ourtj udgm ent ) ; I n r e U ni ver s al M i ner al s , I nc. , 755 F. 2d 309, 311 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( the t i m e forappea l i ng a bankrupt cy j udgm enti s s tr i ct l ycons trued and j ur i s di ct i onal ) . Fi nal l y , even i f w e w er e t o as s um e for the purpos e of thi s anal y s i s thatthe fi nal Poul i s fac t orw ei ghs i n J acks on’ s favor , the b a lan c e o f

th e f a c to rs - f o u r o f six - w o u ld still w e ig h in f a v o r o f d ism iss a l. 6 w as pr ocee di ng i n form a paupe r i s ) and bec aus e J acks on had bee n unr eac habl e s i nce June 2
o f th e p rev iou s y ea r. W hi l e w e have r ecogni zed thatdi s m i s s al i s an extr eme sa nct i on r es erved onl yfor a p p ro p ria te c a se s, se e P o u lis, 7 4 7 F .2 d a t 8 6 7 -6 8 , in th is c a se , the D istric t C o u rt c a re f u lly
w e ig h e d f

iv e o f th e s ix th e P o u lis f

a c to rs , a n d th e re c o rd s u p p o rt s e a c h o f its c o n c lu s io n s . W e agr ee thatfouroutof the fi r s tfi ve Poul i s fac t or s s upportdi s m i s s al , and bec aus e the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatthe i s s ue of ba d fai th w as a neutr al fac t orand does notadvanc e th e a n a lysis , th e b a la n c e o f th e P o u lis f

a c to rs s u p p o rt s d is m is s a l. I n thi s cas e, w e ar e gi ven br i ef pa us e bythe fa ctthatthe di s m i s s al or derdi d not expr es s l yaddr es s the fi nal Poul i s fac t or : the mer i t s of J acks on’ s cl ai m . W e have 3 gener al l yi ndi cat ed thateac h of the Poul i s fac t or s s houl d be cons i der ed. See W ar e v. R od al e P res s, Inc. , 32 2 F . 3d 21 8, 22 1-22 (3d C i r. 20 03 ). H ow ever, w e hav e al soT h e th re e m o tio n s to d ism iss w e re f iled in M a y2 0 0 8 . T h e D istric t C o u rt su a sp o n te 4 or der ed thr ee e xt ens i ons of the t i m e i n w hi ch t o r es pond, and ul t i m at el yrul ed upon the m ot i ons m or e than s i x m onths aft ertheyw er e fi l ed, i n O ct ober2008. D ur i ng thatper i od, J acks on m ade tw o docketentr i es , fi l i ng pr oces s r ece i pt s r efl ect i ng the s ame M onr oevi l l e, P e n n s y lv a n ia a d d re s s th a t J a c k s o n u s e d w h e n h e in itia te d th e a c tio n in S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 7 . A ll th re e m o tio n s to d ism iss sh o w th a t se rv ice w a s m a d e u p o n Ja c k so n a t th e M o n ro e v ill e addr es s . A ccor di ngl y , t o the ext entJ acks on att empt s t o i m pl ythathe di d notr ece i ve not i ce of the docke tact i vi tyi n hi s cas e due t o hi s hom e for ecl os ur e, s uch a c ont ent i on lac k s re c o rd su p p o rt. S e e F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 (b )(2 )(C ) (s e rv ice is c o m p lete u p o n m a ili n g to p e rso n ’s la st k n o w n a d d re ss ). Ja c k so n n e v e r re sp o n d e d to th e m o tio n s to d ism iss a n d , to dat e, has neverexpl ai ned hi s fai l ur e t o do s o. 7 r ecogni zed thatPoul i s does nots etforth a “magi c form ul a, ” s ee Bri s coe v. K l aus , 538 F .3 d 2 5 2 , 2 6 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ), an d th a t, un d e r su f f icie n tlye x tre m e c irc u m sta n c e s, it becomes unnece s s aryt o expr es s l ycons i derthe Poul i s fac t or s atal l . See Spai n v. G al l egos , 26 F. 3d 439, 455 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . Such ci r cumst ance s ar i s e i n cas es w her e a lit ig a n t w ilfu llyre f

u se s to p ro se c u te h is c a se o r e f f e c tiv e lym a k e s it im p o ss ib le to pr ocee d, l eavi ng the D i s tr i ctC our tw i th l i t t l e r ecour s e otherthan di s m i s s al . See Spai n, 26 F .3 d a t 4 5 5 ; G u y e r v . B e a rd , 9 0 7 F .2 d 1 4 2 4 , 1 4 2 9 -3 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). J acks on’ s cas e pr es ent s s uch egr egi ous ci r cumst ance s . A ft eri ni t i at i ng thi s act i on i n th e D i s tr i c tC o u r t , J a c k s o n e f f e c t i v e l y a b a n d o n e d th e a c t i o n , a s d e m o n s tr a t e d b y: (1) h is fail u re to res p o n d to three p en d ing m o ti o n s to d ism iss, d esp it e the D istri ct C o u rt ’s s ua s pont e gr antof thr ee e xt ens i ons of t i m e i n w hi ch t o do s o ; ( 2) hi s fai l ur e t o att end a 4
sc h e d u led sta tu s c o n f

e re n c e , w ith o u t co n tac tin g th e D istric t C o u rt o r th e d e f e n d a n ts to s eek acont i nuance ort o excus e hi s abs ence ; ( 3) hi s fai l ur e t o i ni t i at e anycont act w h a tso e v e r w ith th e D istric t C o u rt f o r o v e r a y e a r, d e sp ite s u b sta n tial d o c k e t ac tiv ityin8

h is c a se ; an d (4 ) h is f

a ilu re to f

ile a m o tio n to re o p e n th e p ro c e e d in g s w ith in th e th irty d a y s d ir e c te d in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o rd e r. Ja c k so n ’s d isa p p e a ra n c e e f f e c tiv e lym a d e it i m p o ss ib le f o r th e D istric t C o u rt to p ro c e e d w ith h is c a se . S e e S p a in , 2 6 F .3 d a t 4 5 5 . T h u s, d ism iss a l w a s a p p ro p ria te w ith o u t stri ct ad h ere n ce to P o u li s. U n d er the se c ir cu m stan ce s, the D istri ct C o u rt ’s om i s s i on of a di s cus s i on of one of the s i x Poul i s fac t or s does notgi ve r i s e t o an abus e of di s cr et i on. W e al s o concl ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng J acks on’ s m ot i on t o r eopen the pr ocee di ngs . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtal l ott ed J acks on a r eas onabl e amountof t i m e i n w hi ch t o fi l e s uch a mot i on, and he f ai l ed t o do s o. J acks on a t t e mp t s t o a t tr i b u t e h i s d e l a yt o h i s p e r s o n a l c i r c u ms t a n c e s , i n c l u d i n g h i s h o me f o re c lo su re . H o w e v e r, Ja c k so n ’s e x p lan a tio n is n o t co n v in c in g , p a rticu lar lyin lig h t o f h is h isto ryo f

d ilato rin e ss in th is c a se . T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in decl i ni ng t o cons i derJ acks on’ s unt i m el ym ot i on. III . Ja c k so n in iti a ted th is a c tio n a n d th e n e f f e c tiv e lyd isa p p e a re d , m a k in g it i m p o ss ib le to p ro c e e d . Ja c k so n c a n n o t n o w c o m p lain o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s r e a so n a b le r e sp o n se to hi s act i ons . B as ed upon ourcl os e r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ct C our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n di s m i s s i ng thi s cas e forfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e pur s uant to F e d . R . C iv . P . 4 1 (b ) o r i n d e n y in g th e u n tim e ly m o tio n to re o p e n th e p ro c e e d in g s .9

B eca us e thi s appea l does notpr es enta s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l aff i rm the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s o rd e rs .