No: 02-3280 CONSTRUCTION DRILLING, INC.; THOMAS R. CROFTS; STEPHEN L. ABSHER v. Eugene G. Chusid

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 02-3280
CONSTRUCTION DRILLING, INC.;
THOMAS R. CROFTS; STEPHEN L. ABSHER
v.
EUGENE G. CHUSID; BORIS G. CHUSID; SVETLANA B. CHUSID,
a/k/a LANA CHUSID, a/k/a SVELTANA IVANOV; GREGORY K. CHUSID,
a/k/a GRIGORY CHUSID; EUGENE BENDER; ALFRED KRUGER,
a/k/a ADOLF KRUGER; MICHAEL SWARTZ; INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL
HOLDINGS, LTD.; d/b/a CARRIBEAN BANK OF COMMERCE,
a/k/a INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC.;
CARIBBEAN BANK OF COMMERCE, LTD.; GLOBAL UNDERWRITERS, INC.;
THE WORLD WIDE TRADING GROUP OF COM PANIES, INC.,
a/k/a WORLD WIDE TRADING GROUP, INC.; IEIEC WORLD HEADQUARTERS
CORPORATION, a/k/a IEIEC INC. GROUP OF COM PANIES,
a/k/a IMPORT EXPORT INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING CO.;
ALL AM ERICAN SPORTS BAR & GRILL, a/k/a THE RUSSIAN WHITE HOUSE
RESTAURANT, INC., a/k/a W HITE HOUSE RESTAURANT, INC.;
LIBERTY INTERNATIONAL CANADA, INC.; AMADON-RDC, INC.; SMDM&E
LTD.;
WORLD U.S. FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a/k/a W ORLD U.S.;
EUGENE H. CHANCE; JAM ES H. CHANCE; PLANAR, S.A.;
NIKOLAY MATTEV NIKOLOV
Gregory K. Chusid,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(Civil Action No. 99-cv-3352)
District Court: Hon. William H. Walls
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

-- 1 of 5 --

* The Honorable Berle M. Schiller, United States District Judge, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
2
September 18, 2003
Before: McKEE and SMITH, Circuit Judges,
and SCHILLER, District Judge*.
(Filed: February 5, 2004)
OPINION
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
In this appeal, Gregory K. Chusid, et al, argues that the district court erred in
denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s Contempt of Court and
Incarceration Order entered on March 14, 2002. For the reasons that follow, we will
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
I.
Because we write only for the parties, it is not necessary to recite the facts of this
case in detail. It is sufficient to note that on July 16, 1999, plaintiffs filed a Complaint in
the District Court of New Jersey, naming Gregory Chusid, members of his family, and
entities controlled by the Chusid family as defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that the Chusid
family used sham corporations to fraudulently obtain, and then abscond with, their funds.
On July 16, 1999, the district court found a probability of success of plaintiff’s
claims, and entered a Restraining Order that prohibited the defendants from transferring
their assets. Despite this Restraining Order, the defendants transferred $2,760,000 of

-- 2 of 5 --

3
their funds into a Luxembourg bank account. The defendants allegedly concealed the
transfer by creating an offshore corporation known as Planar, S.A. that held title to the
bank account. On October 31, 2001, the district court held Gregory Chusid in contempt
of court for violating the Restraining Order. The district court also ordered Gregory
Chusid to transfer the funds held in the Luxembourg account to a federally chartered
financial institution located in the District of New Jersey.
Gregory Chusid did not repatriate the funds, and on March 14, 2002, the district
court entered another Order holding Gregory Chusid in contempt of court for a second
time. The court also ordered his incarceration to compel his compliance with the October
31, 2001 Order. The district court’s rulings had also been announced from the bench
after a hearing on the merits on March 6, 2002.
On April 23, 2002, Gregory Chusid filed a Notice of Appeal of the Incarceration
Order and a “Motion for and Extension of Time for Leave to File a Notice of Appeal in
the District Court.” He subsequently withdrew his April motion.
Gregory Chusid violated the Incarceration Order. He did not surrender to
authorities or repatriate the funds. Instead, he fled the country. On May 24, 2002, while
still a fugitive, Gregory Chusid moved for reconsideration of the March 14, 2002
Incarceration Order. The district court denied his motion on July 18, 2002, because it was
untimely and because Gregory Chusid did not establish grounds to warrant
reconsideration.

-- 3 of 5 --

4
Gregory Chusid filed a Notice of Appeal on August 16, 2002. In this appeal,
Gregory Chusid seeks relief from the July 18, 2002 Order denying his motion for
reconsideration. He still has not repatriated the funds nor surrendered for incarceration.
For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
II.
Gregory Chusid appeals the district court’s July 18, 2002 Order denying his motion
for reconsideration of the district court’s March 14, 2002 Incarceration Order, and asks
that we instruct the district court to vacate the Incarceration Order. However, Chusid
failed to preserve his appellate rights with respect to the Incarceration Order. He did not
file a Notice of Appeal seeking review of the Incarceration Order within thirty days of
March 14, 2002, as required under F.R.A.P. 4(a). Similarly, he did not timely file any of
the motions allowed under F.R.A.P. 4(a)(4) to extend his appellate deadlines.
Additionally, he never filed a motion for leave to appeal under F.R.A.P. 5 or obtained
relief from the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Accordingly, no matter how the
Incarceration Order is characterized, no timely action was ever taken to preserve Chusid’s
appellate rights. Therefore, as a matter of law, we lack jurisdiction to hear an untimely
appeal.
Furthermore, Chusid’s motion for reconsideration was also untimely, as it was not
filed within ten days after the entry of judgment as required by Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 59(e)
and L.Civ.R. 7.1(g). An untimely motion for reconsideration is “void and of no effect.”

-- 4 of 5 --

5
Amatangelo v. Borough of Donora, 212 F.3d 776, 780 (3d Cir. 2000). The incarceration
was orally ordered at a hearing on March 6, 2002, and was entered on the docket on
March 14, 2002. Chusid did not file a motion for reconsideration of that order until May
24, 2002. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the July 18, 2002 Order denying his
motion for reconsideration.
In addition, civil contempt orders are interlocutory and unreviewable except where
incident to an appeal from a judgment that is otherwise appealable. Halderman v.
Pennhurst State School & Hospital, 673 F.2d 628, 636 (3d Cir. 1982).
III.
For all of the above reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Theodore A. McKee,
Circuit Judge

-- 5 of 5 --