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- 2173

___________ R O B E R T M . M U M M A , II , A ppel l ant

v. B O B A L I C O R P O R A T IO N ; K I M C O M PA N Y ; and P E NNS YL VANI A S UP P L Y C OM P ANY

___________ 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 N o. 1- 08- cv- 01965) D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay20, 2010 B efore: F U E N T E S , H A R D IM A N , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: M ay27, 2010)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________2

N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge. A p p e llan t, R o b e rt M . M u m m a , II, h a s b e e n in v o lv e d in lit ig a tio n a g a in st h is m otherand s i s t erform or e than tw o deca des . I ndeed, A ppel l anti dent i fi es hi s m otherand s i s t er s as “l ong- t i m e foe s i n bi t t erfami l yl i t i gat i on. ” W e n e e d o n lyre c ite th e e ss e n tial f a c ts b e c a u se w e a ss u m e th e p a rties ’ f a m ili a rity w ith th e b a c k g ro u n d o f th is c iv il a c tio n a n d w ith th e p ro c e e d in g s in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . T h e late st b a ttl e in th is u n f o rtu n a te f

a m ilysa g a c o n c e rn s th e liq u id a tio n o f tw o f a m ily bus i nes s es : the K i m C om panyand Penns y l vani a Suppl yC om pany . A ppel l ant u n su c c e ss f

u llyc h a llen g e d th e liq u id a tio n o f th e se tw o c o m p a n ies in th e 1 9 9 0 ’s. T h e K im C om pany ’ s as s et s and thos e of the Penns y l vani a Suppl yC om panyw er e conve y ed t o a tena n cy -i n -co m m o n (M u m m a R ea ltyA sso ciates) in 1 9 8 6 . A leng thyan d d ivisi v e c o u rt batt l e ens ued, i n w hi ch the A ppel l antchal l enged the ef fi cac yof the form at i on of the t enanc y - i n- comm on. A ppel l antw as uns ucce s s ful . B oth the K i m C om panyand the Penns y l vani a Suppl yC om panyhave be en mer e s hel l corpor at i ons s i nce 1986. A ppel l ants oughtdecl ar at oryr el i ef i n the D i s tr i ctC our t , as ki ng foran or derthat w oul d al l ow hi m t o i ns pectthe books and r ecor ds m ai nt ai ned bythe K i m C om pany , the B o b a li C o rp o ra tio n (a n o th e r f a m ilyo w n e d c o rp o ra tio n ) a n d th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p p ly C o m p a n y . A p p e llan t alle g e d th a t h e se rv e d d e m a n d s o n th e c o rp o ra tio n s f o r a c c e ss to th e ir re c o rd s. A p p e llan t als o f iled a m o tio n f

o r e q u itab le r e lief

in th e D istric t C o u rt,A p p e llan t h a s n o t ch a llen g e d th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t h is re q u e sts 1. w e re n o t m a d e in g o o d f a ith o n a p p e a l. 3 s eeki ng an expe di t ed hea r i ng on hi s r eques t s . H e al s o fi l ed a mot i on t o di s qual i fy A p p e llee s’ c o u n se l. T he D i s tr i ctC our t , aft erdet erm i ni ng thatboth the Penns y l vani a Suppl yC om pany and the K i m C om pan yhad been dis sol ved i n 1 98 6, fou nd that A pp el l ant’ s general request fo r th o se c o m p an ies’ co rpo rate d o cu m en ts w as n eith er rea so n ab lyrelated to M u m m a’s p e rf o rm a n c e a s a d ire c to r o f th o se c o m p a n ies n o r w a s h is re q u e st m a d e in g o o d f a ith underPenns y l vani a l aw . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d, how ever , perm i tthe A ppel l antt o have 1 a c c e ss to th re e lim ited c a teg o rie s o f d o c u m e n ts f

ro m th e K im C o m p a n ya n d P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p p ly C o m p a n y— o rg a n iz a tio n s th a t h a v e b e e n d e f u n c t f o r m o re th a n tw e n ty y e a rs . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfurtherdet erm i ned that , as t o the B obal i C orpor at i on, A ppel l anthad been gi ven the veryr ecor ds he s ought . A ft ercar eful r evi ew of the r ecor d i n thi s cas e and the ar gum ent s r ai s ed byboth part i es , w e w i l l aff i rm fores s ent i al l ythe s ame r eas ons s et forth bythe D i s tr i ctC our t . I ndeed, w e do nothes i t at e t o concl ude — and do s o w i thout furtherdi s cus s i on — thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tact ed w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the A p p e lla n t’ s re q u e s ts f

o r r e lie f. T h e A p p ell an t al so ch all en g es th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s refu sal t o d isqu ali fyA p p ell ee ’s couns el . W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o di s qual i fyan att orneyfor a b u se o f d isc re tio n u n les s w e a re a sk e d to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a d isc ip lin a ryru le p ro h ib its4

c e rt a in p ro f

e s s io n a l c o n d u c t, in w h ic h c a s e re v ie w is p le n a ry. U ni t ed Stat es v. Mi l l er , 624 F. 2d 1198, 1201 ( 3d C i r . 1980) . W e have hel d thata courtm aydi s qual i fyan att orney o n lyw h e n “ d isq u a lific a tio n is a n a p p ro p ria te m e a n s o f e n f o rc in g th e a p p lica b le di s ci pl i naryrul e[, ] ” kee pi ng i n m i nd “anycount ervai l i ng pol i ci es , s uch as perm i t t i ng a l i t i gantt o r et ai n the couns el of hi s choi ce a nd enabl i ng att orney s t o pr act i ce w i thout exce s s i ve r es tr i ct i ons . ” Mi l l er , 624 F. 2d at1201. H er e, s i nce he has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a v i o l a t i o n o f

th e P e n n s yl v a n i a R u l e s o f P r o f e s s i o n a l C o n d u c t , A p p e l l a n t ’ s b a s i s f o ra n y d is q u a lif ic a tio n is la c k in g a n d th e D is tr ic t C o u rtd id n o t e rrin d e n y in g h is m o tio n . Fi nal l y , w e w oul d be r emi s s i f w e di d notcaut i on the A ppel l antthatthe fe der al court s ar e nota forum forr es ol vi ng w hatthi s r ecor d r evea l s t o be s om e under l y i ng fami l i al confl i ct . T he r ecor d i ndi cat es thatthe A ppel l anthas been e ngaged i n num er ous law su its a g a in st h is m o th e r a n d sis tera n d v a rio u s M u m m a f a m ilyb u sin e ss in ter e sts in b o th P e n n sy lv a n ia a n d F lo rid a f o r m o re th a n tw o d e c a d e s. H e h a s a lso u n su c c e ss f u lly pur s ued l i t i gat i on r el at ed t o the fa m i l ybus i nes s es i n the fe der al di s tr i ctcourt s . A ppel l ees l abel thes e ac t i ons “har as s m ent ” and thatl abelm aybe cl os e t o the mar k. A di s tr i ctj udge r ece nt l yfound the A ppel l ant ’ s cl ai m s i n anotherl aw s ui tt o cons i s tof “Fr ankens t ei n- l i ke gal l i m aufry . ” W e ther efor e ca ut i on the A ppel l antand hi s couns el thatthe fi l i ng of fr i vol ous , r epet i t i ve, orotherw i s e abus i ve appe al s m ayi nvi t e s anct i ons and/ ordamages u n d e r t h e F e d e ra l R u le s o f A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re .