2005 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 ir c uit 5-25-2005 

# T idwell v . B embry 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 . 04-4073

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005

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 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 Third C irc uit at V i ll 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 2005 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll 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 . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Tidwell v . Be mbry " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1130. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005/1130NOT 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 . 04- 4073

________________ TYR ON E TI DW ELL, A ppel l ant v. R O B E R T H . B E M B R Y , III

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 00977) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J uan R . Sanchez

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

M ay20, 2005 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: M ay25, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM T yr one Ti dw el l , pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe E as t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng hi s compl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ectm att er2

ju ri s d ic tio n a n d , a lte rn a tiv e ly, f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im u p o n w h ic h re lie f c a n b e g ra n te d . T id w e ll’ s c o m p la in t a ri s e s f ro m h is le g a l r e p re s e n ta tio n b yR o b e rtH . B e m b ry, II I. W e wi l l a f f i r m. In 1 9 9 6 , T id w e ll p lea d e d g u iltyto v a rio u s o f f e n se s, in c lu d in g p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c o c a in e , tax e v a sio n , fire a rm s o f f e n se s a n d tw o c o u n ts o f m u rd e r in further ance of a c ont i nui ng cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e. H e cl ai m s thatthe U ni t ed St at es A t t orney fai l ed t o honorhi s pr om i s e t o m ove fora dow nw ar d departur e fr om the appl i cabl e U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange. T i dw el l , ther efor e, s oughtr epr es ent at i on fr om B e m b ryin a p o st-tria l ev id e n tiary he a rin g to sh o w h o w th e g o v e rn m e n t alle g e d ly b re a c h e d th e a g re e m e n t. F o r s u c h re p re s e n ta tio n , T id w e ll p a id B e m b ry $ 5 ,0 0 0 . A l though B embryr eques t ed thatT i dw el l ’ s tr i al couns el t es t i fyatthe hea r i ng, he di d not su b p o en a tri al co u n sel, ap p are n tl yas a p rof essio n al co u rt esy . T idw ell claim s tha t B em b ry th e re b yc o m m itt e d leg a l m a lp ra c tice . T id w e ll d id n o t p u rsu e p o st-tria l re m e d ies o r o b tain an yreli ef

related to B em b ry ’s all eg ed m alpra cti ce . T idw ell also claim ed that B em b ry com m i t t ed m al pract i ce byfai l i ng t o p ursue a cl ai m againstC hase A uto Finance. C hase re lin q u ish e d $ 6 ,3 4 1 .4 8 to th e U n ited S tate s M a rsh a ll’s O f f ice . T id w e ll cla im s th a t h e is e n t i t l e d t o th e m o n e y. W ith o u t ex p lan a tio n , the D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d T id w e ll’s c o m p lain t w ith p re ju d ice b e c a u se it co n c lu d e d th a t itlac k e d su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n a n d th a t T id w e ll fai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed. T i dw el l t i m el yappea l ed.3

W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s d is m is s a l f

o r l a c k o f

s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n is p le n a ry. S e e D re s s e r I n d u s ., I nc. v. U nderw r i t er ’ s atL l oy d’ s of London, 106 F. 3d 494, 496 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded thats ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on coul d notbe pr emi s ed on 28 U . S. C . § 1331 beca us e Ti dw el l ’ s cl ai m s of l egal m al pr act i ce di d notgi ve r i s e t o a fede r al ques t i on. A r guabl y , how ever , di ver s i tyj ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1332 exi s t ed. T i dw el l has s how n thathe and Bem bryar e of di ver s e ci t i zens hi p, and he c l ai m ed thathe i s ent i t l ed t o tw o and one- hal f m i l l i on dol l ar s i n damages . B embryar gues thatthe o n lyp o tential d am ag es th at T idw ell co n cre tel ysh o w s are the a m o u n t th at he p aid B em b ry a n d th e a m o u n t h e s o u g h t f ro m C h a s e , w h ic h to g e th e r a m o u n te d to le s s th a n $ 1 2 ,0 0 0 . T h is d o e s n o t, ho w e v e r, tak e in to a c c o u n t an yp o ten tial in tan g ib le d a m a g e s a ttribu tab le to B e m b ry ’s a c tio n s w ith re g a rd to T id w e ll’s se n ten c e . A lth o u g h su c h a n a m o u n t is d if f icu lt t o calcul at e, i tapp ears that i tw ou l d b e suffici ent t o sat i sfythe am ou nt i n co ntr ov ers y r equi r ement . W e w i l l , ther efor e, as s um e thatthe D i s tr i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att er ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to § 1 3 3 2 . B e th a t as it m a y , to s h o w leg a l m a lp ra c tice b yB e m b ryu n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia s tate l aw , T i dw el l had t o s how thathe pur s ued pos t - tr i al r emedi es and fa i l ed t o obt ai n s uch re lie f d u e to a n e rr o r b yB e m b ry. S e e B a ile yv . T u c k e r, 6 2 1 A .2 d 1 0 8 , 1 1 5 (P a . 1 9 9 3 ). T id w e ll d id n o t d o so . T h e D istric t C o u rt, th u s, p ro p e rlyd e ter m in e d th a t T id w e ll fa iled to stat e a claim an d d ism issed h is co m p lai n t pu rsua n t t o F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re4

1 2 (b)(6 ). O urr evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o di s m i s s T i dw el l ’ s compl ai ntw i thout l eave t o amend i s forabus e of di s cr et i on. See G en. R efr act or i es C o. v. Fi r eman’ s Fund I ns . C o. , 337 F. 3d 297, 303 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . B eca us e Ti dw el l has nots how n thathe f a iled to o b tain re lief

d u e to B e m b ry ’s a lleg e d e rro r, h e c a n n o t p o ss ib lya m e n d h is compl ai ntt o m ake avi abl e cl ai m of l egal m al pr act i ce. T he D i s tr i ctC our t , ther efor e, p ro p e rlye x e rc ise d its d isc re tio n to d ism iss w ith p re ju d ice in ste a d o f

p e rm itt in g T id w e ll t o a m e n d h is c o m p lain t. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er d ism issi n g T idw ell ’s c o m p la in t w ith p re

ju d ic e .