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 3-1-2010 

# U SA v . James M ul ve nn a 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 . 09-3012

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . 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 a nd 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 l l a nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . J ame s M ulve nn a" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1810. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1810NOT 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- 3012

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

V S. J AM E S J . M UL VE NNA,

A ppel l ant

____________________________________ 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 09- cv- 00750) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames K nol l G ar dner

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February4, 2010 B efor e: SM I T H , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 1, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM J ames M ul venna, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s J une 10, 2009 or derent er i ng defa ul tj udgm entagai ns thi m i n t he amountof $256, 062. 03. Fort he rea so n s tha t fo ll o w , w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t en ter th e M a y1 1 th lette r o n th e d o c k e t u n til a f ter th is 1 a p p e a l w a s f

ile d . 2 I. O n February19, 2009, t he U ni t ed St at es fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai ns tM ul venna s eeki ng t o r educe t o j udgm entfede r al t ax as s es s m ent s . See 26 U . S. C . § 7401. O n M ar ch 9, 2009, t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed an or der , w hi ch w as m ai l ed t o M ul venna, r efe r r i ng t he c a s e to a M a g is tr a te J u d g e to s c h e d u le a n d c o n d u c t a s e ttle m e n t c o n f e re n c e . O n A pr i l 2nd, upon a mot i on byt he U ni t ed St at es , t he D i s t r i ctC our tr ei s s ued the s um m ons t hatw as or i gi nal l yi s s ued on February19t h. O n A pr i l 16t h, t he s um m ons and compl ai ntw er e per s onal l ys erved on M ul venna. T he s um m ons di r ect ed hi m t o ans w er t he compl ai ntw i t hi n t w entyday s of s ervi ce, and s t at ed thati f he f ai l ed t o do s o, “j udgm entbydefa ul tw i l l be t aken a gai ns ty ou fort he r el i ef r emanded i n t he compl ai nt . ” M ul venna’ s ans w erw as t hus due on M ay6, 2009. H e di d not , how ever , ans w er th e c o m p lain t. R a th e r, o n M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istric t C o u rt re c e iv e d a lette r f ro m h im s t at i ng, i n i t s ent i r ety : “I am w r i t i ng t o as k t hata D efa ul tJ udgm entnotbe done i n t he cas e 09- C V - 00750. ” A l t hough M ul venna s entt he U ni t ed St at es an i dent i cal l et t eron A p ril 2 9 th , h e d id n o t se rv e it w ith th e lette r th a t h e m a iled to th e D istric t C o u rt. 1 O n M ay26t h, t w entyday s aft ert he pl eadi ng deadl i ne had e xpi r ed, t he U ni t ed S tate s re q u e ste d th a t th e c ler k e n ter a d e f a u lt ag a in st M u lv e n n a b a se d o n h is f a ilu re to pl ead orot herw i s e def

end. See Fed. R . C i v. P. 55( a) . T he U ni t ed St at es s erved theB eca us e M ul venna doe s notappea l fr om an or derr efus i ng t o l i ftorvaca t e a 2 d e f a u lt, w e d o n o t em p lo yth e f a c to rs a rticu late d in P o u lis v . S tate F a rm F ire & C a su a lty C o. , 747 F. 2d 863, 868 ( 3d C i r . 1984) . See A nchor age A s s ocs . v. V . I . B d. of Tax R ev iew , 9 2 2 F . 2 d 1 6 8 , 1 7 7 n . 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). 3 r eques ton M ul venna vi a mai l . O n M ay27t h, t he D i s t r i ctC our tcl erk m ade a n entr yon t he case d ock ett hat M ulvenna w as i n d efau l tfor “fai l ure t o ap pear, plead, or ot herw i se defe nd. ” M ul venna di d notr es pond t o t he U ni t ed St at es ’ r eques tfordefa ul torfi l e a mot i on t o s etas i de the def

aul tpur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 55( c) . A nd on J une 10t h, t he U ni t ed St at es fi l ed a r eques tforentr yof def aul tj udgm entfor$256, 062. 03, w hi ch i ts erved on M ul venna vi a mai l . O n t he s ame dayt hatt he r eques tw as fi l ed, t he D is tr ic t C o u rt c le rk e n te re d d e f a u lt ju d g m e n t a g a in s t M u lv e n n a u n d e r R u le 5 5 (b )( 1 ). M u lven n a n o w ap p ea ls from the J u n e 1 0 th o rde r. II. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d re v iew th e e n tryo f d e f a u lt j udgm entforabus e of di s cr et i on. U ni t ed St at es v. $55, 518. 05 i n U . S. C ur r ency , 728 F. 2d 1 9 2 , 1 9 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 4 ). T h is C o u rt d o e s n o t f a v o r e n tryo f

d e f a u lts o r d e f

a u lt 2 ju d g m e n ts, a n d w e “ re q u ire d o u b tf u l ca se s to b e re so lv e d in f a v o r o f th e p a rtym o v in g to s etas i de the def

aul tj udgm ents o t hatcas es m aybe dec i ded on thei rm er i t s . ” I d. ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). F e d e ra l R u le o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 5 (a ) p ro v id e s th a t “th e c ler k m u st e n ter d e f a u lt”4

w hen a de fenda nthas “fa i l ed t o pl ead orot herw i s e def end, and thatfai l ur e i s s how n by a f f id a v it o r o th e rw ise .” O n c e th e d e f a u lt h a s o c c u rre d , R u le 5 5 (b )(1 ) a llo w s th e c ler k to ent erdefa ul tj udgm enti f the pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m i s fora s um cert ai n and the def endanthas fai l ed t o appea rand i s notan i nfantoran i ncompet entper s on. T he t i m e betw een the entr yof def

aul tand the entr yof def aul tj udgm entpr ovi des t he def endantw i t h an oppor tuni t yt o m ove, pur s uantt o R ul e 55( c) , t o vaca t e the def aul t . A m er i can A l l i ance I ns . C o. , L t d. v. E agl es I ns . C o. , 92 F. 3d 57, 59 ( 2d C i r . 1996) . A ddi t i onal l y , i f the defe ndanthas appea r ed i n t he ac t i on R ul e 55( b) ( 2) r equi r es t hat , among ot hert hi ngs , t he d e f e n d a n t b e p ro v id e d w ri tte n n o tic e o f th e a p p lic a tio n . Iti s cl ear that M ulvenna w as i n d efau l tas he did no tfi l e an an sw er orotherw i se re sp o n d to th e c o m p lain t th a t w a s f iled a g a in st h im . H e p ro v id e s n o e x p lan a tio n f o r h is l a c k o f r e s p o n s i v e n e s s , c l a i mi n g o n l yt h a th e “ r e s p o n d e d wi t h i n t h e t i me l i mi t . ” As s uppor tfort hi s cont ent i on, he poi nt s t o t he l et t ert hathe s entt o t he D i s t r i ctC our tand has at t ache d a r ece i pts how i ng t hati tw as m ai l ed on M ay8, 2009. E ven i f thi s l et t erw as cons t rued as an ans w er , i tw as unt i m el y , as hi s r es pons e t o t he compl ai ntw as due on M ay 6 th . A ccor di ngl y , t he ce nt r al ques t i on i s w hetherM ul venna’ s l et t err eques t i ng t hat “def aul tj udgm entnotbe ent er ed” c ons t i tut es an “a ppear ance ” s o as t o fal l undert he ambi tof R ul e 55( b) ( 2) . W e hol d t hati ti s not . “N or m al l y , appea r ance i n an ac t i on i nvol ves s om e pr es ent at i on ors ubm i s s i on t o t he court . ” Por t - W i de C ont ai nerC o. , I nc. v.5

I n t e r s t a t e M a i n t . C o rp . , 4 4 0 F . 2 d 1 1 9 5 , 1 1 9 6 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) . H o w e v e r , “ n o te v e r y a c tb y a par t yt hati s addr es s ed t o t he courtorr el at es t o t he l i t i gat i on w i l l be dee m ed an a p p e a ra n c e ,” a n d , at th e v e rylea st, th e d e f e n d a n t m u st s h o w a n in ten t to d e f e n d to a v o id defa ul t . 10A C har l es A l an W r i ght& A r t hurR . M i l l er , Feder al Pr act i ce a nd Pr ocedur e § 2686 ( 3d ed. ) . M ul venna’ s one- l i ne l et t err eques t i ng t hatdefa ul tnotbe ent er ed does not in d ica te a n su c h a n in ten t an d th u s d o e s n o t co n stitu te a n a p p e a ra n c e th a t trigg e rs R u le 55( b) ( 2) ’ s not i ce r equi r ement s . See B erm udez v. R ei d, 733 F. 2d 18, 22 n. 7 ( 2d C i r . 1984) ( “W e agr ee thatt he s i ngl e l et t er. . . as ki ng foran ext ens i on di d notcons t i tut e an appea r ance . ”) ( ci t i ng R ut l and Tra ns i tC o. v. C hi cago Tunnel T erm i nal C o. , 233 F. 2d 655 ( 7t h C i r . 1956) ) . Fur t her , M ul venna t ook no act i on aft err ece i vi ng not i ce thatdefa ul thad b e e n e n ter e d a g a in st h im , the re b ysig n a lin g th a t h e w a s n o t g o in g to tak e th e re q u isite s te p s to d e f

e n d th e litig a tio n . T hus , as t he U ni t ed St at es ’ cl ai m w as fora s um cert ai n t hatw as det ai l ed i n a decl ar at i on acc om pany i ng t he r eques tfordefa ul tj udgm ent , t he cl erk pr oper l yent er ed defa ultj ud gm ent agai nstM ulvenna un der R ule 55(b)( 1). W e al so no t e t hat w hil e pro se l i t i gant s ar e af

for ded var i ous pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons , t heyar e notent i t l ed t o a gene r al di s pens at i on fr om t he rul es of pr ocedur e orcour t - i m pos ed dea dl i nes . A ccor di ngl y , t he fac t s her e demonstr at e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n ent er i ng d e f a u lt ju d g m e n t a g a in s t M u lv e n n a . F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s Ju n e 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 o rde r.