Three S Delaware, Inc. v. DataQuick Information Systems,

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [998301682-2] in 10-1157. Originating case number: 1:05-cv-02017-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998493045] [10-1157, 10-1161]

Three S Delaware, Inc. v. DataQuick Information Systems,

Doc. 0

Case: 10-1157 Document: 41

Date Filed: 12/29/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1157 THREE S DELAWARE, INCORPORATED; SCOTT R. STEELE, Appellants, and STEELE SOFTWARE Corporation), SYSTEMS CORPORATION (A Maryland

Plaintiff, v. DATAQUICK INFORMATION Corporation), SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED (A Delaware

Defendant ­ Appellee, and STEELE SOFTWARE SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant, BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY; BANK OF AMERICA, NA; THOMAS & LIBOWITZ, PA; WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP; CAYMAN ARTS, INCORPORATED; 3S DEVELOPMENT, LLC; MENETA STEELE; SCOTT STEELE; STEELESOFT, INCORPORATED; STEELESOFT MANAGEMENT, LLC; 3S/REALSERV, INCORPORATED; IAUTOMORTGAGE CORPORATION; OFFERINGS, LLC; OFFERINGS DIRECT, LLC; 3S/REAL PRO CORPORATION, Garnishees.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-1157 Document: 41

Date Filed: 12/29/2010

Page: 2

No. 10-1161 In Re: THREE S DELAWARE, INCORPORATED, Debtor. -------------------------------------THREE S DELAWARE, INCORPORATED; SCOTT R. STEELE, Plaintiffs ­ Appellants, v. AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION; VENABLE LLP; JAMES E. GRAY; STEPHEN E. MARSHALL; DORSEY & WHITNEY LLC; JAMES W. CONSTABLE; DATAQUICK INFORMATIONS SERVICES, INCORPORATED; BEVERLY ANN JOHNSON, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:05-cv-02017-JFM; 1:09-cv-00051-JFM) Submitted: December 9, 2010 Decided: December 29, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. No. 10-1157 dismissed; No. 10-1161 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Erik S. Jaffe, ERIK S. JAFFE, P.C., Washington, D.C.; Yale R. Spector, YALE R. SPECTOR, L.L.C., Lutherville, Maryland, for Appellants. G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Andrew Gendron, Michael J. De Vinne, VENABLE, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland; Beverly Johnson, Santa Ana, California; ROBERTSON & THOMMARSON, L.L.P., 2

Case: 10-1157 Document: 41

Date Filed: 12/29/2010

Page: 3

Matthew B. Ruble, MATTHEW B. RUBLE, P.A., Frederick, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

Case: 10-1157 Document: 41

Date Filed: 12/29/2010

Page: 4

PER CURIAM: In No. 10-1157, Three S Delaware, Inc., and Scott R. Steele ("Three S") appeal from the district court's order The to

denying a number of motions in the underlying civil action. Appellee, DataQuick Information Systems, Inc., has moved

dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). is "mandatory and jurisdictional." This appeal period

Browder v. Director, Dep't

of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978); see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) ("Today we make clear that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement."). The docket on district court's 2009. judgment The was entered of on the filed

September

23,

notice

appeal,

February 3, 2010, was late.

Because the Appellants failed to

file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant DataQuick's motion to dismiss No. 10-1157.

4

Case: 10-1157 Document: 41

Date Filed: 12/29/2010

Page: 5

In No. 10-1161, Three S appeals the district court's orders which, inter alia, refused to abstain from hearing the removed arbitration case and ruled that Three S's claims were barred by collateral estoppel. the parties' briefs and we We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm in No. 10-1161 for the reasons stated by the district court. Sys., 2010). legal before No. Three S Delaware, Inc. v. DataQuick Info. (D. Md. Sept. 23, 2009; Jan. 6,

1:09-cv-00051-JFM

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. No. 10-1157 DISMISSED No. 10-1161 AFFIRMED

5