2009 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 irc uit 4-6-2009 

# Mi les v . Aram ark C orr S e r 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 . 07-3622

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009

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 by 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 ill 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 2009 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill 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 . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Mi le s v . Ar am ark C orr S e r " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1586. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009/1586NOT 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. 07- 3622

___________ M I CK EY M I LES, A ppel l ant v . A R A M A R K C O R R E C T IO N A L S E R V IC E , IN C .; I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND I N T HE I R O F F I CI AL CA P AC I T Y AS F OOD S E RV I CE P RO VI DE R F OR CU RR AN- F RO M HOL D C OR RE CT I ONAL F ACI LI TY OF THE P HI LADEL P HI A PR I S ON SYS TE M ; AL WH I TE , S UPE RVI S OR, INDIVI DUAL L Y AND IN HI S OF F I C IA L C A P A C I T Y A S AN E M P L OYE E OF ARAM AR K; M AK EBA , SUPERVI SOR, I ND I VI DU ALLY AN D I N H ER O FF I CI AL C APA CI TY AS AN E M P L OYE E OF AR AM AR K; F AI RF AX, S UP E R V I S O R , IN D I V I D UAL L Y AND I N HE R O F F I CI AL CA P AC I T Y AS AN E M P L OYE E OF AR AM AR K; J OHN T AYL OR , I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND I N HI S OF F I CI AL CA P AC I T Y AS AN E M P L OYE E OF AR AM AR K; CE L E S T E , S UP E RV I S OR , I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND I N H ER O FF I CI AL C APA CI TY A S AN EM PLOY EE OF AR AM AR K; W END ELL DOE , I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND I N HI S OF F I CI AL CA P AC I T Y AS AN E M P L OYE E OF AR AM AR K; M S . K. BR OWN, S UP E RV I S OR , I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND I N HE R O F F I CI AL CA P AC I T Y AS AN E M P L OYE E OF AR AM AR K; M R. KI NS E Y, I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND I N HI S OF F I CI AL CA P AC I T Y AS AN E M P L OYE E OF AR AM AR K; M S. R. SHA W , I ND I VI DU ALLY AN D I N H ER O FF I CI AL C APA CI TY AS AN EMPL OYEE OF ARAM ARK

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- cv- 1759) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S tew a rt D a lze ll

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

A PR I L 3, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O A N D ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges ( fi l ed: A pr i l 6, 2009)2 ___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM M ick e yM iles a p p e a ls, p ro se , fr o m a n o rd e r o f th e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss in g h is compl ai ntal l egi ng thatA r amar k C orr ect i onal Servi ces , I nc. and ni ne of i t s empl oy ees ( col l ect i vel y“A r amar k”) fai l ed t o pr ovi de pr operK os herm eal s ervi ce dur i ng the 2006 a n d 2 0 0 7 P a s s o v e r h o lid a y s . F o r t h e re a s o n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill a f

f ir m . I . In Ju n e 2 0 0 6 , M iles f

iled a p ro se c o m p lain t alle g in g th a t A ra m a rk f a iled to provide him w i th K osher foo d d uri ng the 2 00 6 P assover holi day . O n O ct ob er 10, becau se A ra m a rk h a d y e t to re p lyto th e c o m p lain t, th e C ler k o f th e C o u rt e n ter e d d e f

a u lt j udgm enti n M i l es ’ favorpur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 55( a) . A ft erA r amar k fi l ed an ans w er , i tm oved t o s etas i de the def aul tj udgm entpur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 55( c) and 60( b) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on and appoi nt ed M i l es couns el . M i l es then m o v e d f o r e n tryo f

a c o n se n t o rd e r re q u irin g A ra m a rk to se rv e h im K o sh e r m e a ls thr oughoutthe 2007 Pas s overhol i day . A r amar k agr eed t o the or der . T hr ee da y s l at er , on M a rc h 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 , M ile s c h a n g e d h is m in d a n d m o v e d f o r w ith d ra w a l o f

th e c o n s e n t o rd e r. O n M ar ch 28, 2007, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed M i l es ’ M ar ch 23 mot i on and ent er ed a cons entor derr equi r i ng A r amar k t o “t ake a l l nece s s arys t eps ” t o pr ovi de M i l es w i th 25 “exc l us i vel y ” K os herm eal s fr om A pr i l 2, 2007, t o A pr i l 10, 2007. T he or ders t i pul at ed3

thati f the meal s w er e notpr ovi ded M i l es ’ couns el w oul d s eek a t el ephone c onfer ence w i th the C ou rt . T he o rderal so st at ed that , assum i ng A ram ark provided t he K osher m eal s, M i l es w oul d s eek di s m i s s al of the ca s e w i thi n 10 day s aft erthe end of the Pas s over h o lid a y , o r b yA p ri l 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 . D ur i ng the Pas s overhol i day , vi a t el ephone c onfer ence , M i l es ’ couns el r eport ed th a t A ra m a rk h a d se rv e d M iles n o n -K o sh e r item s, sp e c if ica llyb re a d , m a rg a rin e , fru it d rin k , an d ice d tea w ith c o rn syru p . A ra m a rk ’s c o u n se l co n c e d e d th a t, on th e f irst f u ll dayof Pas s over , A r amar k m i s t akenl ys erved M i l es a pl as t i c- w r apped pi ece of br ead on hi s food tr ay . A r amar k al s o expl ai ned thati tcoul d notpur chas e K os herm ar gar i ne beca us e i tdi d notm eetthe uni ver s al m enu r equi r ement s pr es cr i bed i n A r amar k’ s contr act w i th the C i tyof Phi l adel phi a. A s t o bever ages , A r amar k s t at ed thatM i l es has r efus ed m ilk th a t w a s in f

a c t K o s h e r, a n d th a t A ra m a rk w o u ld p ro v id e K o s h e r o ra n g e ju ic e . M i l es s t at ed thathe r efus ed the mi l k beca us e i tw as notm arked K os her , K os her - D ai ry , or K o s h e r f o r P a s s o v e r. A r amar k m ai nt ai ned a l og thatdocument ed the meal s i ts erved t o M i l es dur i ng P assover. T he log, w hich bears M i l es’ si gn atures ackno w l edg i ng his recei pt of the m eal s, as w el l as hi s r efus al of ce r t ai n i t ems bec aus e he de emed t hem non-K os her , confi r m s the re p re s e n ta tio n s h is c o u n s e l m a d e d u ri n g th e te le p h o n e c o n f e re n c e c a ll.

A ft erthe hol i daypas s ed, and M i l es di d notm ove t o di s m i s s the compl ai nt , the Co u r ta s k e d b o th p a r t i e s t o a d v i s e i twh e th e rt o e n t e ra d i s mi s s a l o r d e rp u r s u a n tt o E . D.R u le 4 1 .1 (b ) sta tes in re lev a n t p a rt th a t: “W h e n e v e r in a n yc iv il ac tio n c o u n se l sh a ll 1 not i fythe C l erk orthe j udge t o w hom the ac t i on i s as s i gned thatthe i s s ues betw een the p a rties h a v e b e e n se ttl e d , the C ler k sh a ll, u p o n o rd e r o f th e ju d g e to w h o m th e c a se is a s s ig n e d , e n te r a n o rd e r d is m is s in g th e a c tio n w ith p re ju d ic e . . . .” 4 P a . R . 4 1 .1 (b ). W h ile A ra m a rk a d m itt e d to se rv in g so m e n o n -K o sh e r item s to M iles in 1 th e e a rlyd a y s o f

P a ss o v e r, ita ss e rte d th a t th e v a st m a jo rityo f f o o d s s e rv e d c o m p lied w ith th e c o n se n t o rd e r. A ra m a rk su b m itt e d e v id e n c e th a t th e d a iryp ro d u c ts a n d ice d tea it s erved t o M i l es w er e K os her . M i l es obj ect ed t o the appl i cat i on of the s ubs t ant i al p e rf o rm a n c e d o c trin e to th e v io latio n o f a f e d e ra l co u rt o rd e r. M iles f u rth e r a rg u e d th a t, even i f i tw as pr opert o i nt erpr etthe or derundercontr actl aw , the “c l earand u n a mb i g u o u s ” t e r ms o f th e c o n tr a c tmi l i t a t e d a g a i n s td i s mi s s i n g th e c o mp l a i n t . On A ugus t17, 2007, the D i s tr i ctC our t , appl y i ng the equi t abl e doctr i ne of s ubs t ant i al p erf o rm an ce , d eterm ined that A ram ark w as e n ti tl ed to the b en ef ito f th e c o n sen t ord er, a n d th e D istric t C o u rt e n ter e d ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f th e d e f e n d a n ts. M iles f

iled a tim e ly not i ce of appea l chal l engi ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s N ovember13, 2006 or ders ett i ng as i de d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t, th e M a rc h 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 o rd e r e n ter in g th e c o n se n t o rd e r a n d d e n y in g h is m ot i on t o w i thdr aw the cons entor der , and the A ugus t17, 2007 or derent er i ng j udgm ent forA r amar k. II. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e f i n a l o r d e ro f

th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tu n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 . W ith o n e e x ce p ti o n , w h ich d o es n o t app lyh ere , w e re v iew a D istri ct C o u rt ’s or ders ett i ng as i de a de faul tj udgm entunderan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. See B udget5

B li n d s, Inc . v . W h it e, 53 6 F . 3 d 2 4 4 , 2 5 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s i nt erpr et at i on of the cons entdecr ee de novo. See H ol l and v. N . J . D ep’ tof C orr . , 246 F. 3d 2 6 7 , 2 7 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) . Co n s e n td e c r e e s a r e a n a l o g o u s t o c o n tr a c t s , a n d th u s “ we i nt erpr etthem w i th r efe r ence t o tr adi t i onal pr i nci pl es of contr acti nt erpr et at i on. ” U ni t ed S tat es v . N ew Jerse y , 1 9 4 F . 3 d 4 2 6 , 4 3 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W e f in d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a c ted w ith in its d isc re tio n b yv a c a tin g th e d e f a u lt j ud gm ent the C l erk ent ered againstA ram ark. T he C ou rt ’s rei nst at em ent of the case adher es t o ourl ong s t andi ng pr efe r ence “thatcas es be di s pos ed of on the mer i t s w heneve r p ra c tica b le.” H ritz v . W o m a C o rp ., 7 3 2 F .2 d 1 1 7 8 , 1 1 8 0 -8 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 4 ). H e re , in r evoki ng the def

aul tj udgm ent , the C our tpr oper l ybal ance d the appl i cabl e fa ct or s : ( 1) w h e th e r liftin g th e ju d g m e n t p re ju d ice d M iles ; (2 ) w h e th e r A ra m a rk h a d a p rim a f a c ie m er i t or i ous defe ns e; ( 3) w hetherA r amar k’ s defa ul t i ng conductw as excus abl e or cul pabl e; and ( 4) the ef fec t i venes s of al t ernat i ve s anct i ons . E m cas co I ns . C o. v. Sam br i ck, 834 F. 2d 71, 73 ( 3d C i r . 1987) . W e conc urw i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthat A r amar k had a pr i m a fa ci e def ens e ( thati tw as nota s t at e ac t or ) and the del ayw as caus ed b ye x c u s a b le n e g le c t r a th e r t h a n b a d f a ith . W e a lso a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt’s h o ld in g th a t A ra m a rk su b sta n tially per form ed i t s obl i gat i ons underthe cons entor der . U nderthe theoryof s ubs t ant i al perform ance, “a t echn i cal breach o f the term s of a co ntr acti s excused , no tbecau se com pli ance w i th the t erm s i s object i velyi m po ssi ble, bu tbecau se actual per form ance is so6

sim ilar to th e re q u ire d p e rf o rm a n c e th a t an yb re a c h th a t m a yh a v e b e e n c o m m itt e d is i m m at er i al . ” 15 W i l l i s t on on C ontr act s § 44: 52 ( 4th ed. 2008) ; s ee a l s o A t l ant i c LB , I nc. v. V rbi cek, 905 A . 2d 552, 558 ( Pa. Super . C t . 2006) ( “The doctr i ne [of s ubs t ant i al per form ance ] i s i nt ended f orthe pr ot ect i on and r el i ef of thos e w ho have f

ai thful l yand h o n e s tly e n d e a v o re d to p e rf o rm th e irc o n tr a c ts in a ll m a te ri a l a n d s u b s ta n tia l p a rt ic u la rs .” (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted)). H er e, a r evi ew of the meal l og i ndi cat es that , aft erthe fi r s tdayof Pas s over , M i l es r efus ed onl ym i l k, t ea, and condi m ent s . T hus , ata mi ni m um , M i l es w as s erved 23 outof 25 m eal s r equi r ed underthe cons entdecr ee. A r amar k al s o i ntr oduced e vi dence s how i ng th a tth e j u i c e , mi l k , a n d t e a we r e c e r t i f i e d Ko s h e rwh i l e M i l e s c o u n t e r s o n l ywi th h i s o wn all eg ati o n that the f

o o d log s w ere fo rge d an d that the d ri n k s w ere n o t K o sh er. Fu rth er, th e m a rg a rin e w a s a se p a ra telyw ra p p e d c o n d im e n t f o r w h ich A ra m a rk w a s c o n tra c tu a lly unabl e t o pr ovi de a s ubs t i tut e. T her efor e, A r amar k s ubs t ant i al l yper form ed i t s end of the b a rg a in u n d e r th e c o n se n t d e c re e a n d w a s th e re f o re e n tit led to d ism iss a l o f th e su it. N e x t, M iles c h a llen g e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s M a rc h 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 o rd e r d e n y in g h is re q u e st to w ith d ra w th e c o n se n t o rd e r. M iles , thr o u g h c o u n se l, state d th a t h e w ish e d to w i thdr aw the or derbeca us e he “ change d hi s m i nd. ” The D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yappl i ed th e p rin c ip les o f

c o n tra c t in terp re tatio n to f in d a n o f f e r, ac c e p tan c e a n d c o n sid e ra tio n in u p h o ld in g th e c o n se n t d e c re e . S e e Y a rn a ll v . A lm y , 7 0 3 A .2 d 5 3 5 , 5 3 8 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 1997) . Fur ther , i tw oul d have pr ej udi ced A r amar k t o al l ow M i l es t o w i thdr aw the dec r ee fi ve day s befor e the s t artof Pas s over , s i nce i tr el i ed on the cons entdecr ee t o r es ol ve theT o th e e x t e n tth a tM i l e s a l l e g e s j u d i c i a l mi s c o n d u c ta n d b i a s b yth e d i s tr i c tj u d g e , we 2 fi nd no evi dence of s uch mi s conductorbi as i n the r ecor d. A dm i t t edl yFar ett a conc erned the r i ghtt o s el f- r epr es ent at i on i n a cr i m i nal tr i al , but 3 w e ar e notpr epar ed t o hol d thata l i t i gant ’ s i nvocat i on of the s t atut oryr i ghtt o s el fr epr es ent at i on i n ci vi l cas es r equi r es a l es s cl earand unequi vocal as s ert i on. See Far ett a, 422 U . S. at831 ( not i ng thatthe s t atut oryr i ghtt o s el f- r epr es ent at i on w as s i gned one da y 7 l i t i gati on and t o p rovi de M i l es w i th K osher m eal s. M i l es al s o ar gues thathe r ece i ved i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el dur i ng the D istric t C o u rt p ro c e e d in g s. H o w e v e r, in o rd in a ryc iv il d isp u tes , p a rties m a yn o t o b tain r el i ef f r om the i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . See Ponce- L ei va v. A s hcr oft , 331 F. 3d 3 6 9 , 3 8 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (R e n d e ll, J., d iss e n tin g ). E v e n if su c h re lief

w e re a v a ilab le to M i l es , the r ecor d does nots uppor ta fi ndi ng thathi s couns el w as i neff ect i ve. 2 F in a lly , M iles a ss e rts th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to s e lf -r e p re s e n ta tio n . H o w e v e r, t h e S ix th A m e n d m e n t d o e s n o t a p p ly to c iv il p ro c e e d in g s . See gene r al l yA us t i n v. U ni t ed St at es , 509 U . S. 602, 608 ( 1993) ( pr ot ect i ons pr ovi ded by the Si xth A m endmentar e expl i ci t l yconfi ned t o cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons ) . T her e i s a fe der al s t atut e thatguar ant ees l i t i gant s the r i ghtt o s el f- r epr es ent at i on i n ci vi l cas es . See 28 U .S .C . § 1 6 5 4 . In o rd e r to in v o k e th e rig h t, a liti g a n t m u st c lea rlya n d u n e q u iv o c a lly req u est th e righ t t o p roc ee d p ro se . C f. F are tt a v . C ali fo rnia, 42 2 U . S . 8 0 6 , 8 3 5 (19 7 5 ) ( hol di ng thata def

endantpr oper l yi nvoked hi s r i ghtt o s el f- r epr es ent at i on w hen he

“ c lea rlya n d u n e q u iv o c a llyd e c lar e d to th e trial ju d g e th a t h e w a n ted to re p re se n t h im se lf and di d notw antcouns el ”) . W hi l e M i l es r efe r ence s a mot i on he fi l ed i n the D i s tr i ct 3befor e the Si xth A m endmentw as pr opos ed) ; I annac one v. L aw , 142 F. 3d 553, 558 ( 2d

C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). Ita p p e a rs th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rtd id n o t ru le o n th is m o tio n . 4 A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o expand the r ecor d i s deni ed. 5 8 C ou rtrequest i ng t o representhim sel f, the o nlym oti on on the record i s one f i l ed b yM i l es’ couns el r eques t i ng t o w i thdr aw and s t at i ng thatM i l es w as pr epar ed t o pr ocee d pr o s e. 4 T hatm ot i on, how ever , i s nota cl earand unequi vocal as s ert i on of the r i ghtt o s el fre p re se n tatio n . T h e re f

o re , this c laim is a lso w ith o u t m e rit. 5