Thomas Dyno v. Albert Dyno, Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: February 26, 2026
• Docket: 25-1338
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-1338 __________

THOMAS LAMONT DYNO; JULIA DYNO, Appellants

v.

ALBERT DYNO, JR., in his official and personal capacity as Executor of the Estate of Rosemarie Sterchak, deceased ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-01966) District Judge: Honorable Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 21, 2025 Before: HARDIMAN, FREEMAN, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 26, 2026) ___________

OPINION * ___________

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellants Thomas and Julia Dyno appeal from the District Court’s order

denying their motions to reopen their case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 60(d) and for leave to amend their complaint post-judgment, and its subsequent order

denying reconsideration thereof. We will affirm the District Court’s orders.

I.

As all parties are familiar with the facts, we discuss only the details relevant to our

analysis. This case derives from a dispute over the estate of Rosemarie Sterchak. Before

she died in 2015, she named the defendant, Albert Dyno, Jr., as executor of her estate,

and left bequests of corporate stocks and cash to several individuals, including

Appellants. At the time that Appellants filed their original complaint in the District Court

in 2019, Pennsylvania state court proceedings were ongoing. The District Court

determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case, and we affirmed. See

Dyno v. Dyno, No 20-3302, 2021 WL 3508252, at *2-3 (3d Cir. Aug. 10, 2021) (per

curiam).

On August 9, 2021, the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Judge presiding over the

estate matter entered an order directing the defendant to release eighty percent of the

stock bequeathed to the Appellants, while retaining twenty percent for the payment of

outstanding tax obligations. After unsuccessful appeals of this order in the Pennsylvania

Courts, Appellants filed motions to reopen the case filed in the District Court pursuant to

Rule 60(d) for fraud and requested leave to amend their complaint to include as

additional defendants the defendant’s attorney and the Orphans’ Court Judge. In their

motions, appellants challenged the legitimacy of the Orphans Court order and asked the

District Court to vacate it on the ground that it constituted an illegal withholding of 2 property. The District Court, adopting the Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation, denied the motions to reopen the case and amend the complaint as

untimely and meritless. Appellants moved for reconsideration, which the District Court

denied. Appellants timely appealed.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review of any

legal questions, and we review the District Court’s decision to deny the motions for abuse

of discretion. See Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669,

673 (3d Cir. 1999); Menkes v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 762 F.3d 285, 290 (3d Cir.

2014); Jackson v. Danberg, 656 F.3d 157, 162 (3d Cir. 2011).

After a review of the record, we conclude the District Court did not abuse its

discretion when it denyied Appellants’ Rule 60(d) motions for relief. A District Court

may vacate a judgment on a finding of fraud that is “supported by clear, unequivocal and

convincing evidence” of “(1) an intentional fraud; (2) by an officer of the court; (3)

which is directed at the court itself; and (4) in fact deceives the court.” Herring v. United

States, 424 F.3d 384, 386-87 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted); see also In re Bressman,

874 F.3d 142, 150 (3d Cir. 2017). As the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation explained,

a Rule 60 motion cannot be used to remedy alleged fraud on the state court, 1 and

Appellants did not provide any evidence of fraud directed at the District Court. See

United States v. Washington, 549 F.3d 905, 912 (3d Cir. 2008) (explaining that “a federal

1 Although the Magistrate Judge reviewed the motions to reopen as if they were Rule 60(b)(3) motions, the same holds true for a motion to reopen pursuant to Rule 60(d)(3). 3 court has the inherent power to vacate its own judgments when they have been procured

by fraud”).

Because Appellants’ motion to reopen the case pursuant to Rule 60(d) failed, the

District Court did not err in denying Appellants’ motion for leave to file a post-judgment

amended complaint. See Ahmed v. Dragovich, 297 F.3d 201, 207-08 (3d Cir. 2002)

(explaining that once a judgment is entered, an amended complaint may be filed under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 only if the judgment has been set aside or vacated

pursuant to Rule 59 or Rule 60). Nor did the District Court abuse its discretion in

denying Appellants’ motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly, we will affirm. 2

2 The Appellants move for leave to submit their reply brief in DVD format, in order to include hyperlinks. We grant this motion. 4