2006 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 9-25-2006 

# S co cc a v . C e nd ant Mtg 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 . 06-2477

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_2006

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 2006 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 " S c oc ca v . C e nd ant Mt g " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 419. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/419NOT 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 . 06- 2477

________________ RI CHARD A. S COCCA, J R. A ppel l ant v. CE NDANT M OR T GAGE CO RP OR AT I ON f / k / a P HH US M OR T GAGE CO RP OR AT I ON

____________________________________ 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- 0704) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S tew a rt D a lze ll

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

Sept ember21, 2006 BEFORE: SLOV I TER, SM I TH an d VA N A NTW ERPEN, CI RCU I T J UD GES ( Fi l ed: Sept ember25, 2006)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM R i char d A . Scocca , J r . appea l s pr o s e fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng as fr i vol ous hi s m ot i on fi l ed2

p u r s u a n tt o F e d . R. Ci v . P . 6 0 ( b ) a n d h i s mo t i o n f o rr e c u s a l . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. T h e p arti es a re f

am il iar w ith the f

ac ts, so w e w il l on lyb ri ef lyrev isi t th em h ere . In J une 2001, r ent al pr oper t yow ned byScocca , on w hi ch C endantM or t gage Corpor at i on ( “C endant ”) hel d a mort gage, w as s ol d ata j udi ci al t ax s al e af t erthe l ocal t ax col l ect or fai l ed t o r ecor d C endant ’ s t i m el ypaym entof s chool t axes . C endantl at eradvi s ed Scocc a t hati thad negot i at ed w i t h t he pur chas ert o r es t or e ow ner s hi p of the pr oper t yt o Scocca , and the t ax s al e w as s etas i de bya “St i pul at i on and A gr eement ” ent er ed i n t he C our tof C o m m o n P le a s o f

D e la w a re C o u n ty, P e n n s y lv a n ia . I n February2004, Scocca fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n t he D i s t r i ctC our tal l egi ng, i nt eral i a, t hatC endantbr eac hed i t s contr actual and fi duci arydut i es , comm i t t ed fr aud, and vi ol at ed t he R eal E s t at e Sett l ementPr ocedur es A ct( “R E SPA ”) . T he D i s t r i ctC our t( J udge D al zel l ) gr ant ed C endant ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s on N ovember8, 2004. Scocca di d not appea l . I ns t ead, he fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed on D ece m ber23, 2004. Scocca fi l ed a s econd mot i on forr econs i der at i on on M ar ch 16, 2005, agai n chal l engi ng t he or dergr ant i ng C endant ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s . O n A pr i l 20, 2005, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed thi s m ot i on beca us e i tw as unt i m el yand bec aus e Scocc a d id n o t sat isfyan yo f th e re q u ir em en ts fo r reco n side rati o n . S ee M essin a v . K rak o w er, 4 3 9 F . 3 d 7 5 5 , 7 5 8 -59 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).3

Al mo s to n e y e a rl a t e r , o n Ap r i l 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , S c o c c a f i l e d a mo t i o n p u r s u a n tt o F e d . R. C i v. P. 60( b) , cl ai m i ng t hathe “w as unabl e t o m ove t o fi l e a t i m el yappea l ” of the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s t w o or der s deny i ng r econs i der at i on beca us e he “ j us tr eal i zed” thathe di d not r ece i ve anynot i ce of

t hos e or der s . H e s i m ul t aneous l ym oved forr ecus al of J udge D al zel l , al l egi ng bi as . O n A pr i l 13, 2006, the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed both m ot i ons as f ri v o lo u s . S c o c c a a p p e a le d . W e h a v e a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . II. A n a p p e a l f

ro m a n o rd e r d e n y in g a m o tio n f o r re lief f ro m a ju d g m e n t u n d e r R u le 60( b) br i ngs up onl yt he corr ectnes s of the or derdeny i ng thatm ot i on, notthe under l y i ng or der . See Torr es v. C hat er , 125 F. 3d 166, 168 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . W e r evi ew the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deni al of a Rul e 60( b) m ot i on foran abus e of di s cr et i on. See C ol t ec I ndus . v. H obgood, 280 F. 3d 262, 269 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e ca n aff i r m on anybas i s appea r i ng i n the rec o rd. S ee B ern it sk yv . U n it ed S tat es, 62 0 F . 2 d 9 4 8 , 9 5 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). I n hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, Scocca s oughtt o ext end the t i m e forappea l i ng fr om t he d e n ial o f h is tw o m o tio n s f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , arg u in g th a t h e d id n o t re c e iv e tim e ly not i ce of t hos e or der s . H ow ever , “[l ] ack of not i ce of

the entr ybythe cl erk does notaff ect t he t i m e t o appea l orr el i eve orauthor i ze the courtt o r el i eve a part yforfai l ur e t o appea l w i t hi n t he t i m e al l ow ed, exce ptas perm i t t ed i n R ul e 4( a) of the Feder al R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e. ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 77( d) . R el y i ng on t hatrul e, w e have hel d t hat4

w h ere the s o le ba sis fo r a R u le 60 (b) m o ti o n is th e lac k o f n o ti ce o f th e e n tryo f a n o rde r, t he mot i on m us tm eett he t i m e l i m i t at i ons of R ul e 4( a) . See H al l v. C om m uni t yM ent al H e a lth C e n ter , 7 7 2 F .2 d 4 2 , 4 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 5 ) (s tatin g th a t b e c a u se th e p ro v isio n s o f R u le 4( a) ar e “mor e s peci fi c t o t he appe l l at e pr oces s than R ul e 60( b) , ” theycontr ol the t i m i ng o f th e f ili n g o f a p p e a ls); W e st v . K e v e , 7 2 1 F .2 d 9 1 , 9 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 3 ) (h o ld in g th a t “to al l ow a part yt o r el yon R ul e 60( b) as an al t ernat i ve t o t he t i m e cons t r ai nt s of R ul e 4( a) w oul d have the s ubs t ant i ve ef fec tof nul l i fy i ng the pr ovi s i ons of R ul e 4( a) ( 5) . ”) . Pur s uant t o R ul e 4( a) ( 5) , a di s t r i ctcourtm ayext end the t i m e forfi l i ng a not i ce of appea l for excus abl e negl ectorgood caus e, upon a mot i on fi l ed no l at erthan 30 day s aft erthe expi r at i on of the t i m e pr es cr i bed byR ul e 4( a) . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 4( a) ( 5) . R ul e 4( a) ( 6) perm i t s a di s t r i ctcourtt o r eopen the t i m e forfi l i ng w her e the movi ng par t ydi d not r ece i ve not i ce of

t he entr yof the j udgm ents oughtt o be appe al ed, i f the mot i on i s fi l ed w i t hi n 180 day s aft ert he j udgm entoror deri s ent er ed orw i t hi n 7 day s aft erthe movi ng p a rt yre c e iv e s n o tic e o f th e e n tr y , w h ic h e v e r i s e a rl ie r. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 (a )( 6 ). T he or der s deny i ng Scocca ’ s m ot i ons forr econs i der at i on w er e ent er ed on D ece m ber23, 2004, and A pr i l 20, 2005. Scocca had unt i l J anuary24, 2005, and M ay20, 2 0 0 5 , r e s p e c t i v e l y , t o f

i l e t i me l yn o t i c e s o f

a p p e a l . S e e F e d . R. Ap p . P . 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( pr ovi di ng 30- dayper i od w i t hi n w hi ch t o appea l fi nal or der s i n ci vi l act i ons t o w hi ch the U n ited S tate s is n o t p a rty ). S c o c c a f iled h is R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n o n A p ril 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , w e ll o u t s i d e t h e p e r i o d s f

o rf i l i n g a t i m e l y R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) o rR u l e 4 ( a ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y,5

w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g S c o c c a ’s R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n . III . S c o c c a a lso a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o r re c u sa l, w h ich w a s b a se d u p o n a n a lleg a tio n th a t Ju d g e D a lze ll w a s b ias e d a g a in st S c o c c a in th is cas e and a gai ns tpr o s e l i t i gant s i n gener al . A dver s e l egal rul i ngs ar e notpr oof of pr ej udi ce orbi as and al m os tnevera bas i s forr ecus al . See Li t ekyv. U ni t ed St at es , 510 U . S. 540, 555 ( 1994) . W e fi nd not hi ng i n t he r ecor d t hats ugges t s “a de ep- s eat ed favor i t i s m orant agoni s m ” byJ udge D al zel l thatw oul d pr ecl ude fa i rj udgm ent . I d. N or do w e per cei ve anyfac t s fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d concl ude thatJ udge D a lze ll’s im p a rtialitym ig h t re a so n a b lyb e q u e stio n e d . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . 4 5 5 (a ); E d e lste in v. W i l ent z, 812 F. 2d 128 ( 3d C i r . 1987) . W e thus have l i t t l e di ffi cul t yconcl udi ng thatt he D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g S c o c c a ’s re c u s a l m o tio n . I V. F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .