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 5-11-2010 

# P aul Arche r v

. C aribb e an Aut o M ar t 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 . 09-2798

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . 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 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 Thir d C ir c 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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P aul Ar che r v

. C ar ib be an Aut o M ar t " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1363. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1363NOT 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- 2798

_____________ P A U L A R C H E R , A p p e llan t,

v. CARI BBE AN A UTO M ART, I NC.

_____________ O n A pp eal from t he D i stri ctC ou rtof the V i rgi n Isl and s

( D . C . N o. 06- cv- 088) D i s t r i ctJ udge: C ur t i s V . G om ez

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

M ay6, 2010 B e f o re : S M IT H , C H A G A R E S a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui t Judges . ( Fi l ed: M ay11, 2010)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . Paul A r cherappea l s fr om a N ovember21, 2008 or derof the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on of t he D i s t r i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands of the U ni t ed St at es ( t he “A ppel l at e D i vi s i on”) d is m is s in g , su a sp o n te , A r cher ’ s appea l t o t hatcour tfr om the Super i orC our tof theO n J anuary29, 2007, t he Supr eme C our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands as s um ed the D i s t r i ct 1 C o u rt ’s a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n . S ee H yp o li te v. P eo

p le of the V

. I. , S. C t . C r i m . N o. 2 0 0 7 -1 3 5 , 2 0 0 9 W L 1 5 2 3 1 9 , at * 2 (V .I. Ja n . 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 ) (“ T h e S u p re m e C o u rt o f f icia lly as s um ed appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on overappea l s fr om the Super i orC our ton J anuary29, 2 0 0 7 .”); s ee al

s o Supr em e C our tof

the U ni t ed Stat es V

i r gi n I s l ands , H isto ryo f

th e C o u rt, athttp://w w w . vis up rem ecou rt . org/ K no w _Y ou r_C ou rt/ H i st ory_o f_the_C ou rt/ i nd ex. asp (l ast ac ce ssed A p r. 7 , 2 0 1 0 ). H o w ev er, be ca u se A rch er a p p ea led f rom the S u p erior C o u rt befor e the Supr eme C our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands had as s um ed j ur i s di ct i on, hi s appea l re m a in s w ith th e A p p e lla te D iv is io n o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . See 48 U . S. C . § 1613a( d) ( “The es t abl i s hm entof the [Supr eme C our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands ] s hal l notr es ul ti n t he l os s of j ur i s di ct i on of the di s t r i ctcour toveranyappea l then pendi ng i n i t . T he rul i ngs of th e d istric t co u rt o n su c h a p p e a ls m a yb e re v iew e d in th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fort he Thi r d C i r cui tand i n t he Supr eme C our tnotw i t hs t andi ng the es t abl i s hm entof the [ S u p re m e C o u rt ].” ). 2 V i r gi n I s l ands beca us e hi s not i ce of appea l w as fi l ed fourday s l at e. Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e and r emand forpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on. I . Backg r ound In 200 2, P aul A rcherw as em ploy ed b yC ari bb ean A uto M art , Inc. (“C A M ”) as a s al es as s oci at e. A ft erC A M fi r ed A r cher , A r cherfi l ed a w r ongful di s char ge ac t i on ag ains t C A M in the S u p erior C o u rto f th e V ir g in Island s. C A M m o v ed fo r sum m ary jud g m en t on Jan u ary2 4 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e S u p erior C o u rtg ran ted th at m o ti o n , an d the c lerk e n ter e d ju d g m e n t ag a in st A rc h e r o n A p ril 7 , 2 0 0 6 . A rc h e r a p p e a led to th e A p p e llate D i vi s i on on M ay12, 2006, 34 day s aft erthe entr yof j udgm ent . I n a s w orn decl ar at i on, 1 A rc h e r’s c o u n se l ex p lain e d th a t th e n o tice o f a p p e a l w a s f

iled f o u r d a y s la te b e c a u se h is l egal as s i s t anthad mi s t akenl ycal cul at ed the dea dl i ne fr om A pr i l 12, 2008, the daytheT he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 48 U . S. C . § 1613a( a) , w hi ch pr ovi des 2 t hat“the D i s t r i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands s hal l have s uch appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on over t he court s of the V i r gi n I s l ands es t abl i s hed byl ocal l aw t o t he ext entnow orher eaf t er pr es cr i bed byl ocal l aw . ” W e have j ur i s di ct i on under48 U . S. C . § 1613a( c) , w hi ch s t at es t hatourci r cui t“s hal l have j ur i s di ct i on of appe al s fr om al l fi nal deci s i ons of the di s t r i ct c o u rt o n a p p e a l f

ro m th e c o u rt s e s ta b lis h e d b ylo c a l la w .” “The st andar d of r evi ew i s pl enaryw her e the D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s es forl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. ” G ould v. E l ecs . , I nc. v. U ni t ed Stat es , 220 F. 3d 169, 176 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 4 pr ovi des that , “[i ] n a ci vi l cas e . . . the not i ce of 3 appea l . . . m us tbe fi l ed w i t h t he di s tr i ctcl erk w i t hi n 30 day s aft erthe j udgm entoror der 3 j udgm entw as r ece i ved byhi s offi ce. A ft erA r cher ’ s not i ce w as fi l ed and r ece i ved, the A p p e lla te D iv is io n is s u e d a b ri e f in g s c h e d u le , a n d th e p a rt ie s f u lly b ri e f

e d th e a p p e a l. T h e A p p e llate D iv isio n d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l su a sp o n te . A ccor di ng t o t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on, beca us e A r cher ’ s appea l w as fi l ed fourday s l at e, and gi ven the s t r i ctur es of V i r gi n I s l ands R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 5 ( “V . I . A ppel l at e R ul e 5”) , t he C our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i deri t . V . I . A ppel l at e R ul e 5 pr ovi des thatappea l s fr om t he Super i orC our tt o t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on m us tbe fi l ed w i t h t he cl erk of the Super i or C our t“w i t hi n t hi r t yday s aft ert he dat e of e ntr yof the j udgm entoror derappea l ed fro m [.]” V . I. R. A PP . P. 5 (a ). A rc h e r f ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l to o u r C o u rt . I I . D i s cus s i on 2 I n B ow l es v. R us s e1l , t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thel d t hat“the t i m el yfi l i ng o f a n o ti ce o f a p p ea l i n a c ivil ca se [ , g o v ern ed b yF ed era l R u le of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 4 ,] is a ju risd ictio n a l re q u ire m e n t.” 5 5 1 U .S . 2 0 5 , 2 1 4 (2 0 0 7 ). T h e C o u rt g ro u n d e d its h o ld in g in th e f

a c t th a t th e “ tim e lim ita tio n [ in R u le 4 ] i s s e t f o rt h in a s ta tu te .” I

d. at 3appea l ed fr om i s ent er ed. ” F ED . R. A PP . P. 4( a) ( 1) ( A ) . T he thi r t y - dayl anguage cont ai ned

in th e ru le is a lso f

o u n d in th e U n ited S tate s C o d e , w h ich p ro v id e s th a t “n o a p p e a l sh a ll b ri n g an yjud g m en t, o rde r or d ec ree in an ac ti o n , su ito r pro ce ed ing o f a civil natu re b e f o r e a c o u r to f

a p p e a l s f

o rr e v i e w u n l e s s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i s f

i l e d , w i t h i n th i r t y d a ys a f te r t h e e n tr yo f

s u c h ju d g m e n t, o rd e r o r d e c re e .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 0 7 (a ). 4 210. T he C our temphasi zed thati thas “r epea t edl yhel d t hatthi s s t atut e- bas ed fi l i ng per i od forci vi l cas es i s j ur i s di ct i onal . ” I d. a t 2 1 2 . H o w e v e r, th e C o u rt e x p licitly r ecogni zed “ t he j ur i s di ct i onal di s t i nct i on betw een c our t - pr om ul gat ed rul es ” and rul es l i ke F e d e r a l R u l e o f

A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e 4 , w h i c h , b e c a u s e i ti s b a s e d u p o n a s t a tu t o r i l yi m pos ed t i m e cons t r ai nt , i s a “l i m i t [] enac t ed byC ongr es s . ” I d. at212- 13. U n li k e F ed era l R u le of

A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 4 , the tim e li m itco n tai n ed in V . I. A ppel l at e R ul e 5 i s nots etfor t h i n a s t atut e. R ather , i ti s a rul e pr om ul gat ed bythe D istric t C o u rt. See 4 V. I. C OD E A NN . T IT . 4 § 33 ( 2004) ( “The t i m e w i t hi n w hi ch an a p p e a l m u st b e tak e n , the m a n n e r o f tak in g a n a p p e a l, an d th e p ro c e d u re o n a p p e a l sh a ll b e p re sc rib e d b yru les a d o p ted b yth e d istric t co u rt.”); s ee al s o 28 U . S. C . § 2071( a) ( “The S u p r e me Co u r ta n d a l l c o u r t s e s t a b l i s h e d b yAc to f Co n g r e s s ma yf

r o m t i me t o t i me pr es cr i be rul es fort he conduc tof thei rbus i nes s . ”) ; 48 U . S. C . § 1612( a) ( “The D i s t r i ct C our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands s hal l have the j ur i s di ct i on of a D i s t r i ctC our tof the U ni t ed S tat es.”). B e c a u s e V .I. A p p e lla te R u le 5 is n o t ju ri s d ic tio n a l, it m a yb e w a iv e d . See Bow l es , 551 U . S. at216 ( “W hi l e a mandat orybutnonj ur i s di ct i onal [t i m e] l i m i ti s enfor cea bl e at t he i ns i s t ence of a pa r t ycl ai m i ng i t s benef i t[] , i tm aybe w ai ved . . . . B uti f a l i m i ti s t aken5

t o b e j uri sdi ct i on al , w ai ver beco m es i m po ssi ble . . . . ”). H ere, C A M w ai ved i t s defen se t hatA r cher ’ s appea l w as unt i m el y , as the part i es had ful l ybr i efe d t he appe al befor e the C ou rt ’s s ua s

pont e di s m i s s al , and the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on’ s di s m i s s al w as bas ed s ol el yon t hatal r eady - w ai ved def ens e. T he Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e af fi r m at i vel yauthor i ze s ua s pont e di s m i s s al on l yfor l ack o f subjectm at t er j uri sdi ct i on , and no tfor a party ’s fai l ure t o rai se a defen se a v a ila b le to it, s u c h a s a f f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n s e s . See F ed . R . C iv. P. 12 (h)(3 ) (“If the co u rt det erm i nes atanyt i m e thati tl acks s ubj ect - m at t erj ur i s di ct i on, the courtm us tdi s m i s s t he act i on . ” ). A s a r esul t , cou rt s have g eneral l yfou nd i tt o b e err or w hen a C ou rtdis m i sses a c l a i m s ua s

pont e b a s e d o n a d e f

e n s e th a t h a s a lr e a d yb e e n w a iv e d . See, e. g. , H as kel lv. W as h. Tw p. , 8 6 4 F .2 d 1 2 6 6 , 1 2 7 3 (6 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ) (“ S in c e it i s a w a iv a b le d e f e n se , it or di nar i l yi s err orfora di s t r i ctcour tt o r ai s e the i s s ue su a sp o n te .”); Si nw el lv. Shapp , 536 F .2 d 1 5 , 1 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 6 ) (“ In th e a b se n c e o f a n ysu c h sta tu to rya u th o rity , itis i nappr opr i at e fort he tr i al courtt o di s pos e of the ca s e s ua s pont e on an obj ect i on t o t he co m p lai n t w h ich w o u ld b e w aive d if n o t r aised b ythe d ef en d an t( s) i n a ti m elym an n er.”); W agnerv. Faw cet tP ubl ’ ns , 307 F. 2d 409, 412 ( 7th C i r . 1962) ( hol di ng thatthe di s t r i ct cour t“had no r i ghtt o appl yt he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons s ua s pont e” be caus e i thad bee n “w aive d ”).A p a rt ym ig h t p u rp o s e ly w a iv e a p a rt ic u la r d e f e n s e f o r s tr a te g ic re a s o n s . C

f . U ni t ed 4 Stat es v. Kon igsberg , 336 F. 2d 844, 851 ( 3d C i r . 1964) ( di s cus s i ng how “an a ccus ed repr esent ed b ycou nsel [m ay ] w ai ve[] a ri gh tfor strat egic purposes”). In tho se si tuati on s, we r e a c o u r tt o d i s p o s e o f a c l a i m s ua s

pont e bas ed on a w ai veabl e def ens e, i tw oul d be i nterven i ng aft er a partyhad been faced w i t h a ch oice abou tw hethert o rai se a defen se a n d h a d a lr e a d ye x e rc is e d its c h o ic e n o t to d o s o . W e vac at e r athert han r ever s e bec aus e, on r emand, the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on m ay 5 concl ude thatA r cher ’ s four - daydel ayi n fi l i ng w as i nexcus abl e, underthe doctr i ne of e x c u s a b le n e g le c t. See Pi oneerI nv. C o. v. B r uns w i ck Ass ocs . Ltd. P ’s hi p. , 507 U . S. 380, 3 9 5 (1 9 9 3 ) (e sta b lish in g a f o u r-p a rt b a lan c in g tes t f o r d e ter m in in g w h e th e r n e g lec t is excus abl e, exami ni ng “the dange rof pr ej udi ce t o t he debt or , the l ength of the del ayand its p o ten tial im p a c t o n ju d icia l p ro c e e d in g s, th e re a so n f o r th e d e lay, in c lu d in g w h e th e r it w as w i t hi n t he r eas onabl e contr ol of the movant , and w hetherthe movantact ed i n good f a ith ” ). W e e m p h a siz e , h o w e v e r, th a t w e im p lyn o th in g a s to w h e th e r A rc h e r’s n e g lec t is e x c u sa b le o r n o t. 6 I I I . C oncl usi on A cc o rdin g ly , w e h o ld tha t th e A p p ell ate D ivisi o n erred in d ism issi n g A rch er’s a p p e a l su a sp o n te , b a se d o n lac k o f ju risd ictio n , sin c e tim e lin e ss u n d e r V .I. A p p e llate R ul e 5 i s a w ai veabl e def ens e and i tw as w ai ved byC A M i n t he pr es entcas e. W e thus 4 v a c a te a n d re m a n d to th e A p p e llate D iv isio n f o r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is opi ni on. 5