2004 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 4-6-2004 

# S a vit sky v . M azzel l a P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-3745

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 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 no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" S a vitsk y v . M a z z e l l a" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 874. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/874NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT NO. 02-3745

__________________ 

### ROBERT SAVITSKY

v. 

### LOUIS MA

ZZELLA; ANNE M AZZEL LA, h/w Louis Mazzella, Appellant

_________________________________ On Appeal From the United States Distri ct Court for the Easte rn District of P ennsylvania (E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 89-cv-06314) District Judge: Honorable James T. Giles

________________________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

DECEMBER 15, 2003 Before: RO TH, MCK EE, AND ROSEN N, CIRCUI T JUDGES

(Filed Apr

il 6, 2004)

_________________ OPINI ON

_________________ ROTH, Circuit

Judge This m atter arises from a c ivil action pursued in the Un ited States District Co urt1 Rule 3118, titled “Supplementary Reli ef in Aid of Execu tion,” provides:

(a) On petiti on of the pl ainti ff, aft er noti ce and heari ng, the court in which a judgment has be en enter ed may, before or af ter t he issuance of a writ

of executi on, ent er an order against any par ty or person (1) enjoining the negot iati on, tr ansfer, assignment or other disposi tion of any s ecurit

y, document of ti tle, pawn ticket , ins trument, mortgage, or document repr esenting any pr operty interest of t

he defendant s ubject to execut ion; (2) enjoining the transfer, removal, conveyance, ass ignment or ot her disposi tion of property

of the defendant

subject to execut ion; (3) directing the de fendant or any ot her part y or person t o take such 

### 2 for the Eas tern Dis tri ct of Pennsylvania by Robert

Savits ky against Louis Mazzella. The back grou nd facts of

this cas e are w ell-kno wn to the p arties, an d w e w ill only briefly revis it t hem here. I n the 1980s, Mazzella was the sole shareholder of a propert

y and casualt y i nsurer, ColonialAssurance Company. At that time, Savi tsky was an examiner fo r th e P en ns ylv an ia I ns ur an ce D ep ar tm en t. M az ze lla fil ed su it a ga in st S av its ky, alleg ing , inter alia , that Sa vitsky exa mine d C olon ial As suran ce C om pany, en gage d in inappropriate conduct as an examiner, and erred in his re port t o the Ins urance Co mm issione r. M azze lla did n ot prev ail in that a ction. S avitsky the n filed this suit against Mazzella for wrongfuluse of civi l procee dings. Following a j urytri al in 1991, Savits ky obt ained a j udgment in t he amount of $90,000. This Court af firmed the judgm ent (C.A . No. 91-1 835). In August, 2002, Savit sky f iled a Motion for Supplement ary Relief in Aid of Execution, pursuant

to Rule 69 of t

he Federal Rules of Civi l Procedur e and Rule 3118 of the Pennsylvania

Rules of Civi l Procedur e. 1 In his m otion, S avitsky alle ged th at M azze llaacti on as the cour t may direct to preser

ve coll atera l security

for prop erty of the defe ndan t levied upo n or a ttache d, or an y security interest l evied upon or attac hed; (4) directin g the d isclosu re to the sheriff of th e w herea bou ts of p rope rty of the defe ndan t; (5) directing that

propert y of t he defendant which ha s been removed from the count

y or concealed for

the purpos e of avoidi ng executi on shallbe deli vered to t

he sheri ff or made avail able for executi on; and (6) granting such other reli ef as maybe deemed necessar y and appropri ate. 

### 3 is the so le ow ner o f all sha res of stock in Co lonial In vestm ent C om pany, a P enns ylvania corp oration , and th at the sto ck w as orig inally poss essed by M azze lla, or on his be half, in Pennsylvania. Savit sky further al leged his belief t hat Mazzella has an ow nership interest in o ther sec uritie s an d th at the sec uritie s ha ve b een sec reted , in p art, to avo id ex ecu tion
. Also, Savi tsky

alle ged that

the judgment

obtaine d in 1991 has been r egist ered with t he United States District Court s for the Southern Dis tri ct of Florida, the Dist rict of Connecticut , the CentralDistri ct of Cali fornia, the Souther n Distri ct of New York, the So ut he rn D ist ric t o f C ali fo rn ia, an d t he D ist ric t o f N ew Je rse y. The D istri ct Court granted reli ef, initially ordering that Mazzella is: 1. Enjoined fr om conveyi ng, tr ansferring, l iquidating, encumbering, concealing, or s elling any ce rti ficat ed and uncert ifie d shares of stock, bonds or othe r secu rities in w hich h e has an inte rest; 2. O rd er ed to pr ov id e p lai nt iff ’s c ou ns el, w ith in 7 d ays hereof a l ist

of the hol ders i dentities, quantities and locat ion of al l certific ated and uncer tifi ed shares of stock, bonds and other

securi ties in which he has an interest, the loc ations of the same and t he ident iti es and capacities of any

holders thereof

, othe r than hi mself;2 Mazzella’s former counselwithdrew his appearance af ter Savi tsky ’s moti on was filed, and prese nt counse l did not enter an appearan ce until the day of the D istrict Court’s order. The Distri ct Court initi ally denied Mazzell a’s pet iti on for recons ideration, but on the same dat e, the Distr ict Court ordered a he aring on t

he peti tion. 

### 4 and 3. Ord ered to delive r to the U nited S tates M arsha l for this Distric t within 20 d ays hereo f, with appr opriate endorsement, all s aid securiti es in hi s contr ol or possessi on, inc luding but not limited t o Colonial Inve stmen t Com pany, tog ether w ith a co py of this order, and said Marshal l is direct ed to accept the same. Upon M azzell a’s pet iti on to recons ider t he order, the Dist

rict Court held a

hearing. 2 After hearing argument by

the parties, the Dist

rict Court oral ly

amended the third paragr aph of the order only , dir ecti ng Mazzella t o surrende r to t he United States Marshalfor the Eastern Dis tri ct of Pennsylvania all property

found within t

he dist rict that i s solely owned by Maz zella. The m otion w as otherw ise denied. M azzella appe als the District Cou rt’s orders. We have juris dicti on over thi s appeal of an order r elat ing to pos t-j udgment
exe cutio n. See 28 U .S.C. § 129 1; Isidor PaiewonskyAssocs., Inc. v. Sharp Props. , Inc. , 998 F .2d 145, 14 9-50 (3d Cir. 1993 ). Rule 69 o f the Fed eral Rules o f Civil Proc edure governs proc eedings in aid of execution and directs t hat such pr oceedings s hall take place in acc orda nce w ith the sta te in w hich th e D istrict Co urt sits–P enns ylvania, in th is
cas e–e xce pt th at an y fed eral s tatut e go ver ns to the e xten t that it is ap plica ble. Pen nsylvan ia Ru le 311 8 per mits su mm ary proce eding s in aid o f exe cution in ord er to

### 5

main tain the status q uo as to the ju dgm ent de btor’s p rope rty, and it is limite d to p rope rty sole ly ow ned by the jud gm ent d ebto r. Greater Val ley Terminal Corp. v. Goodman , 202 A.2d 89, 92, 94 (Pa. 1964) . We review the Dis tri ct Court’ s grant ing of rel ief i n aid of
exe cutio n fo r an abu se o f dis creti on. See Marshall Ruby & Sons v. Delta Mining Co. , 702 A.2d 860,862 (Pa. Super. 1997) . We may affi rm on any gr ound supporte d by t he
reco rd. Tourscher v. McCullough , 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 199 9). Mazzella’s arguments foc us on the appl icat ion of Rule 3118; he asserts that the Distri ct Court was bound by the parameters of t

hat rul e because Savi tsky ’s moti on spec ifically cited th at basis for re lief. M azze lla con tends that the Distric t Cou rt abus ed its discre tion in g ranting the relief soug ht by Sa vitsky bec ause Ru le 311 8 is no t intend ed to be a d iscov ery devic e (there being other s pecif ic state co urt rules gov erning disco very in aid of exec ution), b ecau se R ule 31 18 ap plies on ly to affo rd relief regard ing p rope rty fou nd w ithin the jurisdictio n of Pen nsylvan ia, and beca use R ule 31 18 ap plies on ly to afford rel ief re garding pr operty solely owned byMazzella. We will affi rm. Fir st, regarding Mazzella’s argument t hat the discover

y pr ovisi on in the order exceeds Rule 3118’s l imit ations and that the Dist rict Court was constrained by the bo und s of R ule 31 18, w e note that Sa vitsky’s m otion w as bro ugh t pursu ant to Fed eral R ule of

Civil P roced ure 6 9, as w ell as un der R ule 31 18. R ule 69 prov ides, in part, tha t “in aid of the judg men t or exe cution , the jud gm ent cre ditor. . . ma y obtain disco very fro m an y person , includ ing the judg men t debto r, in the m anne r prov ided in

### 6

these r ules or in the manner

provided by

the prac tice of the st ate i n which the di stri ct court i s held. ” Second, Mazzell a’s ar gument that the Dist rict Court abused i ts di scret ion in ordering rel ief affec ting pr operty outsi de of Pennsy lvania , based on Chadwin v. Krouse , 386 A.2d 33 (Pa. Super. 1978), is unpersuasive. The holding of that case
conc erned the erro neou s sum mary co mp ulsion of the judg men t debto r to brin g pro perty from outsi de the st ate within the s tate to be del ivered to the sheriff or made avai lable for executi on. The District Court’s order, as amended at the hearing on Mazzel la’s motion for recons ideration, i s not i nconsistent with Ch adw in or with Rule 3118’ s purpose of
m ain tai ni ng th e s tat us qu o r eg ar di ng a ju dg m en t d eb to r’s pr op er ty. Finally, we reject

Mazzella’s argument t

hat the Distri ct Court a

bused it s discretion in ord ering r elief affectin g pro perty not s olely ow ned b y Ma zzella. T he ca se M azze lla cites in su ppo rt, Stop 35, I nc. v. Haines , 543 A .2d 11 33 (P a. Sup er. 198 8), is distin gui sha ble o n its facts . Stop 35 involved t he (improper) use of Rule 3118 by the judgment cr editor

of a debtor -husband t o adjudic ate the title to property once held by

the hu sb an d a nd w ife as ten an ts i n t he en tire ty, w he re th e ju dg m en t cr ed ito r h ad on ly a potenti al li en against

the ent ireties pr operty

based upon the de btor- husband’s contingent expectancy to survive t

he wife and gain sole ow nership. Based on the record before us, the si tuati on here is not congruent with that

in Stop 35 , and we conclude t hat the Distri ct Court act ed within its di scret ion to s truct ure the order as i t did. We h av e c on si de r edal l of Maz ze l l a’ s ar gu me nt s andfi ndt he m u np er su as i ve . Weco nc lu de th at t he D ist ric t C ou rt d id no t ab us e it s d isc re tio n i n t hi s m att er . A cc or di ng ly,

we will affi rm the Dist

rict Court’s order, as modified at the hear ing held on September 24, 2002.



### 7