U.S. Third Circuit: August 2009 Archives
U.S. Third Circuit - The FindLaw 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

August 2009 Archives

Office of the Comm'r of Baseball v. Markell, No. 09-3297

It need not be decided whether District court's denial of a motion for preliminary injunction filed by the National Hockey League, the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association was proper where, as a matter of law, the elements of Delaware's sports lottery violates the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. section 3701.   

Read Office of the Comm'r of Baseball v. Markell, No. 09-3297

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. No. 06-cv-00538)
District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet

Argued August 20, 2009
Opinion Filed August 31,2009

Judges

Before:  McKee, Fuentes and Hardiman, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Circuit Judge Hardiman

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Pauletta J. Brown, Megan W. Cascio, Susan W. Waesco  

Counsel for Appellee:  Andre G. Bouchard, Joel E. Friedlander, Sean M. Brennecke, David J. Margules

District court's judgment, involving land title insurance policy dispute, is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in granting Commonwealth's motion to dismiss as in order to except expressly from ALTA 9 Endorsement coverage a right of refusal or other restrictions noted in paragraph 1(b)(2) of the Endorsement, an insurer must list those restrictions specifically in Schedule B: and 2) Commonwealth bore the burden of detecting the restrictions stated in the Declaration, and had to list those restrictions explicitly as exceptions to avoid covering loss from them.  

Read Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. , No. 06-2890

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 05-cv-00281)
District Judge: Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter

Argued January 28,  2009
Opinion Filed August 31, 2009

Judges
Before:  Scirica, Chief Judge, Ambro and Smith, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Circuit Judge Ambro

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant.Justin K. Miller, C. Paul Scheuritzel.

Counsel for Appellee: Craig R. Blackman, Neal R. Troum.

Nova Chem., Inc. v. Sekisui Plastics Co. LTD., No. 08-4090

In a licensing agreement dispute involving restriction of Styrofoam-type sales to certain Asian countries, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-licensee is affirmed where the "fully paid-up" license clearly expired along with defendant's intellectual property rights in the process, and as such, because defendant does not have continuing intellectual property rights in the process, the License Agreement has no continuing force.   

Read Nova Chem., Inc. v. Sekisui Plastics Co. LTD., No. 08-4090

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 06-cv-00478)
District Judge: Honorable David S. Cercone

Argued May 20,  2009
Opinion Filed August 28, 2009

Judges
Before:  Fuentes, Jordan and Nygaard, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Circuit Judge Fuentes

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Walter H. Flamm, Jr., Michael J. McCaney, Jr.

Counsel for Appellee:  John M. McIntyre, David J.Bird

Prowel v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc., No. 07-3997

In an employment discrimination action under Title VII involving claims of gender stereotyping and religious harassment, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is vacated with respect to the gender stereotyping claim as the record below is ambiguous as to whether the claim was based on sexual orientation or discrimination because of sex, and thus because both are plausible, the case presents a question of fact for the jury and is not appropriate for summary judgment.  District court's grant of summary judgment on the religious harassment claim was proper as plaintiff cannot satisfy the first element of his cause of action that there was intentional harassment because of religion.   

Read Prowel v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc., No. 07-3997

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 06-cv-00259)
District Judge: Honorable Terrence F. McVerry


Argued October 1, 2009
Opinion Filed August 28, 2009

Judges
Before: Fisher, Chagares and Hardiman, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Circuit Judge Hardiman

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Katie R. Eyer, Salmanson Goldshaw, Corey S. Davis, Timothy P. O'Brien

Counsel for Appellee: Kurt A. Miller, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong

Robertson v. Klem, No. 07-2581

In habeas proceedings arising from petitioner's conviction of two counts of conspiracy to commit murder, district court's judgment is reversed where the evidence was insufficient to allow a rational trier of fact to find defendant participated in two conspiracies and the court's contrary conclusion was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent, In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).  

Read Robertson v. Klem, No. 07-2581

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-00467)
District Judge: Hon. Terrence F. McVerry


Argued April 22, 2009
Opinion Filed August 28, 2009

Judges
Before: Scirica, Chief Judge, Sloviter and Fisher, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Circuit Judge Sloviter

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Thomas L. Kirsch, II, Linda T. Coberly, John F. Kness

Counsel for Appellee:  Jack R. Heneks, Jr., Nancy D. Vernon

US v. Lychock, No. 06-3311

District court's decision to deviate from a 30-37 month Guideline range down to a sentence of five years probation for a defendant convicted of knowing possession of child pornography is vacated as procedurally and substantively unreasonable where the district court failed to properly consider the 18 U.S.C. section 3553 factors and failed to offer a sufficient justification for its imposition of a sentence so substantially below the applicable Guidelines range. 

Read US v. Lychock, No. 06-3311

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 06-cr-00039-1)
District Judge: Honorable Anne E. Thompson
Argued February 5, 2009
Opinion Filed August 25, 2009

Judges
Before:  Rendell and Roth, Circuit Judges, and Padova, Senior District Judge
Opinion by Circuit Judge Roth

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Sabrina G. Comizzoli, Christopher J. Christie, Caroline A. Sadlowski, Assistant United States Attorney, George S. Leone, Chief, Appeals Division Office of the United States Attorney

Counsel for Appellee:  Paul B. Brickfield

US v. Tann, No. 08-2378

Defendant's conviction on two counts of illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(1) is affirmed in part and remanded in part where: 1) district court committed plain error in convicting and sentencing defendant on both counts charged under section 922(g)(1), as defendant's possession of both a firearm and ammunition, seized at the same time in the same location, supports only one conviction and sentence under the section; and 2) defendant has met his burden to show that his substantial rights were affected by his unauthorized conviction and sentence on both counts charged under section 922(g).       

Read US v. Tann, No. 08-2378 

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Crimina  No. 07-55-JJF)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
Argued March 10, 2009
Opinion Filed August 24, 2009

Judges
Before:  Fuentes, Chagares, and Aldisert, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Circuit Judge Chagares 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Edson A. Bostic, Daniel I. Siegel

Counsel for Appellees: Colm F. Connolly, Shawn A. Weede  

McTernan v. City of York, No. 07-2670

In a case brought by protesters against the City of York alleging that a ramp in front of the Planned Parenthood Facility was a public forum, district court's decision denying plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs had no chance of success on the merits as the handicap ramp was a nonpublic forum; 2) there was no irreparable harm because plaintiffs were allowed to protest on the public sidewalk next to the ramp and had access to every person entering the clinic through the ramp; 3) allowing the protesters on the ramp could have led to violence between protesters and the patrons of Planned Parenthood Facility, posing likelihood of harm to the defendants; and 4) public interest favors ensuring unrestricted handicapped access to facilities.  District court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint is affirmed as the issues on the preliminary injunction and the motion to dismiss were exactly the same and plaintiffs had full opportunity to present their arguments at the hearing on the preliminary injunction.   

Read McTernan v. City of York, No. 07-2670 

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the MiddleDistrict of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 07 -cv-00088)
District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III
Argued January 12, 2009
Opinion Filed August 24, 2009

Judges
Before Sloviter and Barry, Circuit Judges, and Pollack, District Judge
Opinion by Sloviter, Circuit Judge

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  Dennis E. Boyle, Randall L. Wenger, Boyle, Neblett & Wenger

Counsel for Appellees: Frank J. Lavery, Jr., James D. Young, Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson

US v. Hopkins, No. 06-5091

On remand from the Supreme Court in light of Chamber v. US, 129 S.Ct. 687 (2009), defendant's sentence under the enhanced guidelines is affirmed but the designation of defendant as a career offender is reversed where the crime of failure to report for incarceration, as distinguished from escape from custody, is not a violent felony for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. section 924(e).   

Read US v. Hopkins, No. 06-5091

 

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the MiddleDistrict of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 06-cr-00064)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
Argued February 11, 2008
Opinion Filed August 21, 2009

Judges
Before: Sloviter, Smith, and Stapleton, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Circuit Judge Stapleton

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Frederick W. Ulrich, Esq.

Counsel for Appellees: Michael A. Consiglio, Esq.  

Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, No. 07-4285

In an employment discrimination case under the Rehabilitation Act, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is vacated and remanded where: 1) a  4 year limitation applies to plaintiff's failure-to-transfer claim, and not the general 2 year statute of limitations the district court applied in barring the complaint; 2) plaintiff's complaint need only allege sufficient facts to state a plausible failure-to-transfer claim; 3) plaintiff need only plead that she is an individual with a disability and the district court improperly focused on whether she could prove she was disabled; but 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an untimely motion for a class action determination. 

Read Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, No. 07-4285

 

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (No. 07-cv-00807)
District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
Argued May 20, 2009
Opinion Filed August 18, 2009

Judges
Before: FuentesJordan and Nygaard, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Circuit Judge Nygarrd

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Gregory G. Paul, Esq.

Counsel for Appellees: Pamela G. Cochenour, Esq., Pietragallo, Gordon, Alfano, Bosick, and Raspanti. 

US v. Saybolt, No. 07-4392

Convictions for conspiracy to defraud the IRS are affirmed where: 1) materiality is an essential element of the charged 18 U.S.C. section 286 offense, but is not required to show a section 287 violation; 2) despite the fact that the indictment did not use the term material, it sufficiently alleged facts that warrant an inference of materiality  and 3) the deficiency in the jury instructions as to materiality was harmless error. 

Read US v. Saybolt, No. 07-4392

 

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Nos. 05-CR-00618-2 & 05-CR-00618-1))
District Judge: Honorable Gene E.K. Pratter
Argued January 28, 2009
Opinion Filed August 18, 2009

Judges

Before: Scirica, Chief Judge, Ambro and Smith, Circuit Judges 
Opinion by Smith, Circuit Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellants: Daniel I. Siegel, Esq. and Andrew F. Erba, Esq.

Counsel for Appellees:  Pamela Foa

Pennmont Secs. v. Meyer Frucher, No. 08-1476

In a dispute between the Philadelphia Stock Exchange and a member, order dismissing plaintiff-member's motion for a temporary restraining order is vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of proper subject matter jurisdiction where the district court lacked proper subject matter jurisdiction over the action as plaintiff failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies provided by the Exchange Act, and two exceptions to the exhaustion requirement did not apply.

Read the full decision in Pennmont Secs. v. Meyer Frucher, No. 08-1476.

 

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (No. 07-cv-05543)
District Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody
Argued March 12, 2009
Opinion Filed August 17, 2009

Judges

Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Circuit Judge Fuentes

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Lynanne B. Wescott, Esq. of The Wescott Law Firm P.C.

Counsel for Appellees: Stephen J. Kastenberg, Esq., Edward D. Rogers, Esq., Paul Lantieri III, Esq. of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Intersoll, LLP

Bayer v. Monroe County Children and Youth Servs., No. 07-4267

In a procedural due process action involving an allegedly unconstitutional delay in holding a juvenile dependency hearing, district court judgment is reversed where defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, as it was objectively reasonable for defendants to have believed that their particular conduct in this case did not violate clearly established law, and that they had discharged their responsibilities with respect to plaintiffs' procedural due process rights by advancing the case to the point where a hearing could take place within the constitutionally prescribed time frame. 

Read Bayer v. Monroe County Children and Youth Servs., No. 07-4267

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United State District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 
Argued April 20, 2009
Decided August 14, 2009

Judges
Before SCIRICA, Chief Judge, SLOVITER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SCIRICA, Chief Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: GERARD J. GEIGER, Newman, Williams, Mishkin, Corveleyn, Wolfe & Fareri.

For Appellee: PETER G. LOFTUS, The Loftus Law Firm.

Abdi Jama v. Esmor Correctional Services, Inc., No. 08-2500

In a dispute over damages and attorney's fees stemming from a Religious Freedom Restoration Act and tort action, district court judgment is vacated where that the district court assessment of the evidence was based on an improper interpretation of the interrogatories and verdict sheet and thus the court erred in attributing a portion of plaintiff's tort award to her RFRA claim. On remand, the Hensley standard should guide the district court's consideration of pendent state claims in a litigation where a plaintiff has prevailed on a fee-eligible federal claim.   

Read Abdi Jama v. Esmor Correctional Services, Inc., No. 08-2500


Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Argued May 20, 2009
Filed August 12, 2009

Judges
Before RENDELL and GARTH, Circuit Judges, and VANASKIE, District Judge.
Opinion by RENDELL Circuit Judge.
Dissenting Opinion by GARTH, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: James C. Owens, Virginia A. Seitz, Frank R. Volpe, Rebecca K. Wood, Sidley Austin LLP.

For Appellee: Drew Dorman, Derek S. Tarson, Justin P. Smith, Mary Beth Hogan, Alison J. Page, W. Barton Patterson, Erica Davila, Debevoise & Plimpton; Penny Venetis, Rutgers University.  

Holk v. Snapple Beverage Corp., No. 08-3060

In a class action alleging that Snapple products were deceptively labeled, district court judgment is reversed where: 1) defendant waived its express preemption argument; 2) implied field preemption does not apply as neither Congress nor the FDA intended to occupy the fields of food and beverage labeling and juice products; and 3) implied conflict preemption does not apply as there is no FDA policy with which state law could conflict since neither the FDA policy statement nor the FDA's letter regarding the term "natural" have the force of law required to preempt conflicting state law.    

Read Holk v. Snapple Beverage Corp., No. 08-3060

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Argued June 24, 2009
Filed August 12, 2009

Judges
Before BARRY, SMITH, Circuit Judges and RESTANI, Judge.
Opinion SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: Lynne M. Kizis, Daniel Lapinski, Philip A. Tortoreti, Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer.

For Appellee: Van H. Beckwith, Jeffrey A. Lamken, Michael G. Pattillo, Jr., Martin V. Totaro, Baker Botts.  

Diaz v. Comm'r of Social Security, No. 08-4067

In a dispute involving a denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits, district court judgment is vacated and remanded where the ALJ acknowledged plaintiff's severe obesity as an impairment, but failed to consider its impact in combination with her other impairments on her workplace performance.  

title="Diaz v. Comm'r of Social Security - full decision"Read Diaz v. Comm'r of Social Security, No. 08-4067

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Argued May 22, 2009
Filed August 12, 2009

Judges
Before RENDELL, STAPLETON and ALARCÓN, Circuit Judges.
Opinion RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: Abraham S. Alter, Langton & Alter.

For Appellee: Karla J. Gwinn, Social Security Administration.  

US v. Polk, No. 08-4399

Sentence for weapons possession in prison is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court's characterization of defendant's offense as a crime of violence and calculation of defendant's sentencing range was based on Kenney, which no longer remains good law in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Begay v. US; and 2) possession of a weapon in prison should not be considered a crime of violence under the Career Offender Guidelines post-Begay.    

Read US v. Polk, No. 08-4399

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Argued July 8, 2009
Filed August 12, 2009

Judges
Before SLOVITER, AMBRO, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by AMBRO, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: Stephen F. Becker, Shapiro & Becker.

For Appellee: Martin C. Carlson, Office of the United States Attorney.  

US v. Thielemann, No. 08-2335

Conviction and sentence for receiving child pornography is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant as its analysis under 18 U.S.C. sec. 3553(a) was informed and adequate, and the sentence was reasonable; 2) the court did not err in imposing a special condition of supervised release of barring defendant from sexually explicit materials as there is a significant nexus between restricting defendant from access to adult sexually explicit material and the goals of supervised release, and the restriction is not overbroad or vague; and 3) the court did not err in imposing the special condition of supervised release of restricting defendant's access to computers and internet use as the restriction shares a nexus to the goals of deterrence and protection of the public, and does not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is necessary.    

Read US v. Thielemann, No. 08-2335

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Argued May 20, 3009
Decided August 3, 2009

Judges
Before: RENDELL and GARTH, Circuit Judges, and VANASKIE, District Judge.
Opinion by GARTH, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: LARRICK B. STAPLETON, Ardmore, PA.

For Appellee: EDMOND FALGOWSKI, Office of the United States Attorney, Wilmington, DE.

Boyd v. Warden, SCI Waymart, No. 07-2185

District court's grant of petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed and remanded where: 1) the court properly determined that petitioner exhausted his Strickland claim in the state courts and that this claim was not procedurally defaulted by Pennsylvania's bar against the relitigation of "previously litigated" claims in PCRA proceedings; 2) petitioner's claim is governed by the test for ineffective assistance of counsel enunciated in Strickland; 3) the court erred in reviewing petitioner's claim de novo as the state courts adjudicated petitioner's claim on the merits and federal habeas relief is subject to the standards prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act; and 4) the court improperly rejected the Magistrate Judge's finding that petitioner had not demonstrated prejudice as required by Strickland. 

Read Boyd v. Warden, SCI Waymart, No. 07-2185

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Reargued En Banc November 18, 2008
Filed July 31, 2009

Judges
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, McKEE, BARRY, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.
Per Curium Opinion

Counsel
For Appellant: THOMAS W. DOLGENOS, SUSAN E. AFFRONTI, District Attorney's Office, Philadelpha, PA.

For Appellee: CHERYL J. STURM, Chadds Ford, PA.

US v. Coleman, No. 08-3155

Sentence for conspiracy to commit bank robberies and other crimes is affirmed and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted where: 1) although the Anders brief filed by defendant's counsel was deficient, there are no nonfrivolous issues for review on appeal; and 2) the district court properly re-sentenced defendant following the remand in his first appeal for re-sentencing in light of Booker.   

Read US v. Coleman, No. 08-3155

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Submitted July 10, 2009
Filed July 31, 2009

Judges
Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: Trenell J. Coleman, Pro Se; John M. Holliday, Trenton, NJ.

For Appellee: George S. Leone, Samuel A. Stern, Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ.

Courtney T. v. School District of Philadelphia, No. 08-2676

In an action for tuition reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, district court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiffs are not entitled to tuition reimbursement for plaintiff's placement at a long term psychiatric residential treatment center as the center cannot be considered an appropriate placement for tuition reimbursement purposes; and 2) plaintiff is not entitled to compensatory education for the period during which she was in the center's acute care ward as the failure to reevaluate her educational needs and develop a new IEP was attributable to the acute nature of plaintiff's medical condition.    

Read Courtney T. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, No. 08-2676

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Argued April 14, 2009
Filed July 31, 2009

Judges
Before: MCKEE, SMITH, Circuit Judges and STEARNS, District Judge.
Opinion by SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: Joseph Anclien, Carl A. Solano, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, PA.

For Appellee: Dennis C. McAndrews, Gabrielle C. Sereni, McAndrews Law Offices, Berwyn, PA.

US v. Diallo, No. 07-3641

Conviction for intentionally trafficking in goods and knowingly using a counterfeit mark is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its definition of use under 18 U.S.C. sec. 2320(a) and the jury charge accurately submitted the issues to the jury; and 2) there was sufficient evidence of defendant's use of the counterfeit marks on or in connection with the goods to sustain his conviction.   

Read US v. Diallo, No. 07-3641

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Argued October 23, 2008
Filed July 31, 2009

Judges
Before: RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK, District Judge.
Opinion by SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: Renee Pietropaolo, Office of Federal Public Defender, Pittsburgh, PA.

For Appellee: Robert L. Eberhardt, Laura S. Irwin, Office of the United States Attorney, Pittsburgh, PA.

Brown v. JEVIC, No. 08-4789

In a dispute involving the removal of a class action, district court judgment finding removal improper is reversed where: 1) plaintiff had no reasonable basis to believe that defendant JEVIC was amenable to suit, and thus defendant was a fraudulently joined party and its status as a defendant could not be used to defeat otherwise proper federal jurisdiction; and 2) the court erred in remanding the case to state court as defendant was not properly before the district court since it was never served with legal process.   

Read Brown v. JEVIC, No. 08-4789

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Argued March 6, 2009
Filed July 31, 2009

Judges
Before: SLOVITER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges and POLLAK, District Judge
Opinion by HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: Christopher Landau, Scott M. Abeles, Gary D. Anderson, Kirkland & Ellis, Marlton, NJ.

For Appellee: Robert F. O'Brien, O'Brien, Belland & Bushinsky, Cherry Hill, NJ.