Reddick v. Krenkel, 071718 FED3, 18-1018

Docket Nº:18-1018
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:AARON REDDICK, Appellant v. DAVID A. KRENKEL
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

AARON REDDICK, Appellant

v.

DAVID A. KRENKEL

No. 18-1018

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

July 17, 2018

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 13, 2018

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

Before: JORDAN, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

OPINION [*]

PER CURIAM.

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 Krenkel's 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 then denied his motion. Later that month, Reddick filed a letter regarding his motion to reinstate his case, construed by the District Court as a motion to reopen. In October 2017, the District Court denied his request. Reddick again filed a motion to reopen in November 2017. On December 4, 2017, the District Court denied Reddick's motion. Reddick filed a timely notice of appeal, appealing the District Court December 4, 2017 order. Krenkel subsequently filed a motion to strike Reddick's appendix and dismiss the appeal, or in the alternative, for leave to file a supplemental appendix, with this Court.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP