UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _________________

No. 24-1108 _________________ US BANK NA, as Trustee for the Registered Holders of J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., multifamily Mortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series 2012-K18

v.

B R PENN REALTY OWNER LP,

Appellant ____________________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court No. 2:21-cv-00502) District Judge: Honorable Wendy Beetlestone ____________________________________________

Argued on September 23, 2024

Before: KRAUSE, BIBAS, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed May 8, 2025) Benjamin A. Garber (ARGUED) KLEINBARD LLC Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street, 5th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Appellant Paul Ort Raymond A. Quaglia (ARGUED) BALLARD SPAHR 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Appellee

OPINION OF THE COURT

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

Mortgage foreclosures are typically governed by state law and litigated in state courts. So what do federal law and procedure require when a lender sues to foreclose in federal court? The answer is that lawyers’ favorite: it depends.

B-R Penn Realty defaulted on a mortgage against one of its apartment buildings. Its lender sued, and the District Court issued a money judgment in the lender’s favor for the amount owed. To recover on that judgment, the lender sought a foreclosure sale of the building. Penn Realty twice moved to

2 halt the sale, the District Court denied those motions, and the building was sold. Penn Realty now appeals the second of those denials, arguing it was based on reversible errors of federal and state law. We disagree, so we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In 2011, B-R Penn Realty took out a $46 million loan backed by a mortgage on its Philadelphia apartment building.1 Nearly a decade later, amid the Covid pandemic, it defaulted. U.S. Bank, Penn Realty’s lender, sued to foreclose in federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction over its “complaint in mortgage foreclosure” under Pennsylvania law. App. 1–2. After a bench trial, the District Court ruled that Penn Realty had breached the loan agreement. But it did not foreclose the mortgage. Instead, the Court entered a money judgment in U.S. Bank’s favor for the amount Penn Realty owed: $51,392,086.96. Penn Realty appealed that judgment,2 but it did not obtain a stay. This separate appeal concerns what happened next.

In September 2023, U.S. Bank, armed with the money judgment, renewed its foreclosure efforts. As required by

1 Throughout, we use “apartment building” or “building” as shorthand for the full legal description of the real estate subject to the mortgage. 2 We affirmed in an unpublished opinion. U.S. Bank N.A. v. B- R Penn Realty Owner, LP, No. 23-2185, 2024 WL 4284933 (3d Cir. Sept. 25, 2024).

3 Pennsylvania law, Pa. R. Civ. P. 3180,3 the Bank filed a praecipe, or request, for a writ of execution, asking the U.S. Marshals to seize the apartment building so that it could be sold to satisfy the judgment. A week later, the Clerk of Court issued that writ. The Bank served it and a notice of the sale through Penn Realty’s attorneys, Pa. R. Civ. P. 440(a)(1)(i), and, after finding Penn Realty’s office “emptied out,” App. 359, a marshal served the writ at the home of Penn Realty’s sole owner.4 His wife accepted process and signed the receipt.

U.S. Bank also fulfilled Pennsylvania’s other notice requirements before the foreclosure sale, which was first scheduled for January 3, 2024.