731 Fed.Appx. 164 (3rd Cir. 2018), 18-1018, Reddick v. Krenkel
|Citation:||731 Fed.Appx. 164|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||Aaron REDDICK, Appellant v. David A. KRENKEL|
|Attorney:||Aaron Reddick, Pro Se David A. Krenkel, Esq., Krenkel & Krenkel, Allenhurst, NJ, for Defendant-Appellee|
|Judge Panel:||Before: JORDAN, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||July 17, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 13, 2018
This opinion is not regarded as Precedents which bind the court under Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedure Rule 5.7. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-07928), District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
Aaron Reddick, Pro Se
David A. Krenkel, Esq., Krenkel & Krenkel, Allenhurst, NJ, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: JORDAN, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
Aaron Reddick appeals pro se from the order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying his motion to reopen his case. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
On December 31, 2013, Reddick filed a complaint in the District Court of New Jersey against Defendant Krenkel, his former attorney who represented him in an appeal from a state court employment discrimination case. In his complaint, Reddick
alleged that Krenkel "negligently failed to act with the degree of competence generally possessed by [a]ttorneys," "committed [m]alpractice and breach [f]iduciary duties," "fail[ed] to know or apply law," and conducted an "[i]nadequate [i]nvestigation." Dkt # 1, at 2.
In October 2014, Krenkel filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On April 20, 2015, the District Court granted Krenkels motion because there was no diversity of citizenship (as both parties were residents of New Jersey). Approximately two years later, in April 2017, Reddick filed a motion to reopen the case. After a scheduled hearing wherein Reddick did not appear, the District Court denied his motion to reopen in June 2017. In July 2017, Reddick filed what appeared to be an identical motion to reopen. A hearing was scheduled, and Reddick again did not appear. In September 2017, the District Court...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP