Addressing the issue of appellate jurisdiction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that an untimely filed corrected appeal does not provide a basis for appellate jurisdiction. Nocula v. UGS Corp., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 6082 (7th Cir., March 24, 2008) (Sykes, J.).
Mitch Nocula is the sole shareholder of two corporations: P.Z. Alucon Sp. z o o (Alucon), which manufactures tools and dies, and Tooling Systems International Corp. (TSI), which solicits orders for the manufacture of tools and dies. Alucon is a primary supplier for UGS Corporation (UGS). Nocula "teamed up with" Charles Hahs Jr. (former owner of Electrode, a Florida corporation) and began using computer-aided-design for their tools and dies. Later, Nocula and Hahs implemented a virtual shop at Alucon. UGS Poland filed a criminal complaint in Poland against Alucon and Hahs for illegally using UGS software. Polish police seized Alucon's computers and essentially stopped its operation. UGS Poland won a civil judgment against Alucon but lost its criminal case. The Alucon computers "disappeared" according to UGS Poland and UGS.
Nocula and TSI filed a diversity suit in Illinois federal court. The court held that "any claim based on UGS Poland's & civil judgment in Poland is barred by the act of state doctrine & [as any claim from this action] would require [the federal court] to reverse the Polish court's decision." Accordingly, the district court granted UGS's motion to dismiss the case.
Nocula, acting pro se, then filed a timely notice of appeal in his own name. The notice of appeal had defects that were cured in a later filed Corrected Notice of Appeal. However, the second notice was untimely.
Citing Rule 3(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court's dismissal de novo noting that "[a] notice of appeal must (1) specify the party or parties taking the appeal by naming each one in the citation or body of the notice; (2) designate the judgment from which the appeal originates; and (3) name the court to which the appeal is taken."
The original (timely filed) notice did not name TSI as a party to the appeal and, as the Court observed, Nocula, as a shareholder, did not have standing to sue to enforce the rights of the corporation. Although there are exceptions by which a shareholder has standing, such as in cases in which corporate management has refused to pursue some action for reasons unrelated to good-faith business judgment, when the shareholder has suffered direct harm or where there is a special contractual duty, in the present case, none of those exceptions were found to exist. Hence, the Seventh Circuit dismissed the present action for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
