Opinions of the United 2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

3-17-2006

Stoe v. Flaherty Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 04-3947

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

Recommended Citation "Stoe v. Flaherty" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1344. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1344

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 04-3947

GEORGE P. STOE, Appellant

v.

WILLIAM E. FLAHERTY; DAVID CARPENTER; JAMES CARPENTER; WILLIAM SMELAS; ROBERT SUNDERMAN; RONALD STATILE

On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 04-cv-00489) District Judge: Hon. Donetta W. Ambrose

Argued October 18, 2005 BEFORE: SMITH, STAPLETON and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the opinion of the Court entered January 23, 2006, is hereby amended by deleting the last sentence of Section III-C and substituting in lieu thereof a new paragraph to read as follows:

This argument has been waived.1 But even were we to consider it, our conclusion would be the same. We do not read section 959(a) as creating federal jurisdiction that would exist independent of

. Accordingly, section 959(a) does not suggest that this state law action is anything other than “an action that could not have been commenced in a court of the United States absent jurisdiction under”

.

(c)(2).

By the Court

/s/ Walter K. Stapleton United States Circuit Judge

DATED: March 17, 2006

1 Mandatory abstention applies only “[u]pon timely motion of a party” and does not implicate the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

(c)(2); In re V&M Mgmt., Inc.,

(1st Cir. 2003) (“[T]he abstention provision, which is waiveable by the parties, does not detract from the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”).

2