Westport Insurance v. Blum, Yumkas, Mailman, Gutman & Denick , 68 F. App'x 501 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1454
WESTPORT INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BLUM, YUMKAS, MAILMAN, GUTMAN & DENICK, P.A.;
IRVING F. COHN; ROBERTA BORENSTEIN; JEFFREY
BORENSTEIN; RONALD SHAPIRO; KENNETH SHAPIRO;
SUSAN SHAPIRO,
Defendants - Appellees,
versus
GERALD J. FALONI,
Party in Interest - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-01-
141-AMD)
Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 15, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerard J. Faloni, Appellant Pro Se. Rostyslaw Jurij Smyk, Jeffrey
A. Goldwater, Michelle M. Bracke, BOLLINGER, RUBERRY & GARVEY,
Chicago, Illinois; Paul Cottrell, TIGHE, COTTRELL & LOGAN, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware; Andrew Jay Graham, Aron Uri Raskas, KRAMON &
GRAHAM, Baltimore, Maryland; Andrew Radding, David Bryan Applefeld,
ADELBERG, RUDOW, DORF & HENDLER, L.L.C., Baltimore, Maryland;
Pamela Anne Bresnahan, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE, Washington,
D.C.; John Henry Lewin, Jr., VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, Baltimore,
Maryland; James E. Carbine, JAMES E. CARBINE, P.C., Baltimore,
Maryland; Kevin Thomas Smith, MASTERMAN CULBERT & TULLY, L.L.P.,
Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Westport Insurance Company, Incorporated (Westport) brought a
complaint to rescind malpractice insurance coverage to Blum,
Yumkas, Mailman, Gutman & Denick, P.A. (Blum, Yumkas). Westport
also sought a declaratory judgment that it is not obligated to
defend or indemnify Blum, Yumkas in an action brought by the
beneficiaries of trusts that alleged Blum, Yumkas mishandled those
trusts. Gerard J. Faloni asserted in the district court that he
was entitled to share in the settlement reached in the Westport
action based on allegations of criminal acts by some of the lawyers
associated with the case. The district court denied Faloni’s claims
to any portion of the settlement upon finding no legal or factual
basis for his claims. Faloni was never joined as a party to the
action. Faloni appealed the district court’s order adopting the
settlement agreement reached by the parties.
Because Faloni was not a party to the action, and could not
properly be a party, we dismiss his appeal. See Marino v. Ortiz,
484 U.S. 301, 304 (1988); Kenny v. Quigg, 820 F.2d 665, 667 (4th
Cir. 1987). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3