Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and )

MARY ARNDT, Revenue Officer )

of the Internal Revenue Service, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-158-SJM

)

EBERT G. BEEMAN, )

)

Defendant, )

)

v. )

)

GE CLIENT SERVICE )

BUSINESSES, et al., )

)

Third-party Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Previously pending in this case, among other things, was a Motion by GE Client

Business Services and Keith S. Sherin to Dismiss All Purported Claims Asserted

Against Them By Defendant Ebert G. Beeman [17]. By text order dated February 4,

2010, this Court directed the Defendant to file, on or before February 18, 2010, a

response in opposition to this motion. At some point on February 18, 2010, Defendant

Beeman, proceeding pro se, submitted a hard-copy of his response [19] by delivering it

to the Clerk of Court.

On February 19, 2010, after Beeman had delivered his timely response to the

Clerk’s Office – but before his response was reflected on the docket or received by this

Court, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Judgment Order [18] which,

among other things, granted the motion to dismiss filed by GE Client Business Services

and Keith Sherin. In its Memorandum Opinion, the Court noted (consistent with what

was then reflected on the docket), that no response to the motion had been filed by

Case 1:09-cv-00158-SJM Document 20 Filed 02/19/10 Page 1 of 3
 “The ‘savings to suitors’ provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) (conferring on the 1

federal courts original jurisdiction, exclusive of the state courts, over ‘any civil case of

admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to

which they are otherwise entitled’) precludes automatic preemption of state remedies by

admiralty law,” Robinson v. Alter Barge Line, Inc., 513 F.3d 668, 672, (7 Cir. 2008) th

(citations omitted), so long as the state remedy does not create a “clear conflict” with

admiralty law. Id. (quoting Ellenwood v. Exxon Shipping Co., 984 F.2d 1270, 1278 (1st

Cir.1993)).

Page 2 of 3

Beeman. (See Mem. Op. dated 2/19/10 [18] at p. 15 n. 7.)

The Court now being in receipt of Beeman’s response to the motion to dismiss, it

has given the matter full, de novo consideration. The Court notes that Beeman’s

response contains a nearly verbatim restatement of matters previously set forth in his

other submissions. In its entirety, Beeman’s response states as follows:

GE Client Business Services and Keith S. Sherin cooperated with Mary R.

Arndt and Ed Pattison by violating “the Savings to the [sic] Suitors

Clause”[ ] at USC 28-1333(i). I am standing in my unlimited commercial 1

liability as a secured party creditor and request that the officers of this

court do the same. I respectfully request the indulgence of this court as I

am not schooled in law. This is provided by the precedent set by Hanes

v. Kerner at 404 U.S. 519.

IRS Agent(s) placed an unlawful lien, levy, or garnishment against my

property and/or bank accounts. Pennsylvania is not authorized by a U.S.

District Court order as is required by the U.S. Code.

I do not give you permission to dismiss this claim.

(Reply to Mot. by GE Client Business Services and Keith S. Sherin [19] at pp. 2-3.)

Having fully considered the Defendant’s response to the motion to dismiss filed

by GE Client Business Services and Keith Sherin, the Court finds no basis to alter its

previous order granting the motion. Beeman’s invocation of the “Savings to Suitors”

clause is manifestly inappropriate, as the clause has no apparent application in the

case at hand. His suggestion that the challenged lien, levy and/or garnishment required

pre-approval by a United States District Court was rejected by this Court for the reasons

set forth in its prior Memorandum Opinion and Judgment Order [18]. This Court

previously found, and continues to find, that no genuine issue of material fact exists

Case 1:09-cv-00158-SJM Document 20 Filed 02/19/10 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

relative to the lawfulness of the challenged lien, levy and garnishment. Moreover, as

the Court previously discussed, the movants GE Client Business Services and Keith

Sherin are statutorily discharged from liability pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6332(e) to the

extent they honored the IRS’s levy. Finally, and unfortunately for Beeman, this Court

does not require his “permission” in order to dismiss his third-party claim for legal

insufficiency. Accordingly, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, to wit, this 19 day of February, 2010, upon de novo consideration of th

the Defendant’s “Reply to Motion by GE Client Business Services and Keith S. Sherin”

[19], the Court finds no basis to amend its previous ruling granting the motion to dismiss

filed by GE Client Business Services and Keith S. Sherin. Accordingly, the Court’s

Judgment Order of February 19, 2010 [18] stands as originally entered.

s/ Sean J. McLaughlin 

SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

United States District Judge

cm: All counsel of record

and

Ebert G. Beeman

12746 Route 19 S

Waterford, PA 16441-6190 

Case 1:09-cv-00158-SJM Document 20 Filed 02/19/10 Page 3 of 3