Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
8-24-2004
Bright v. Westmoreland Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential
Docket No. 03-4320
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation "Bright v. Westmoreland" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 355. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/355
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. PRECEDENTIAL APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES COURT OF FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT PENNSYLVANIA ___________ (D.C. No. 03-cv-01072) District Judge The Honorable Arthur J. No. 03-4320 Schwab ___________ ___________ JOHN BRIGHT, Individually and in his capacity as Administrator ARGUED MAY 12, 2004 of the ESTATE OF ANNETTE BRIGHT, deceased, BEFORE: NYGAARD, McKEE, and CHERTOFF Circuit Judges. Appellant (Filed August 24, 2004) v. ___________
WESTMORELAND COUNTY; TAMI Peter M. Suwak, Esq. (Argued) WHALEN, Individually and in her P.O. Box 1 capacity as a Probation Officer for Pete's Surplus Building Westmoreland County; RICHARD Washington, PA 15301 YESKO, Individually and in his capacity Counsel for Appellant as a Probation Officer for Westmoreland County; ANTHONY C. GUINTA, Individually and in his capacity as Thomas P. Pellis, Esq. (Argued) Probation Supervisor for Westmoreland Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck County; CITY OF MONESSEN; CARL 114 South Main Street FRANZAGLIO, Individually and in his Greensburg, PA 15601 capacity as a Police Officer for the City Counsel for A ppellee County of of Monessen; PAUL S. KUNTZ, Westmoreland, et. al. Individually and in his capacity as Court Administrator for the Westmoreland Thomas P. McGinnis, Esq. (Argued) County Court of Common Pleas; JOHN Thomas, Thomas & Hafer PECK, Individually and in his capacity 301 Grant Street as District Attorney of Westmoreland One Oxford Centre, Suite 1150 County; CHARLES KOSCHALK Pittsburgh, PA 15219 ___________ Counsel for Appellee City of Monessen, et. al. Mary E. Butler, Esq. (Argued) the legitimacy of the dismissal order. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania relevant footnote asserts that during a Administrative Office of PA Courts preliminary case conference, which 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414 occurred before the due date for or the Philadelphia, PA 19102 filing of Bright’s response to the Counsel for Paul S. Kuntz, etc. appellees’ motions to dismiss,1 the District Court indicated that it planned to dismiss ___________ Bright’s complaint on the basis of an unpublished District Court decision. At OPINION OF THE COURT this conference, the District Court also ___________ requested that in lieu of a reply brief the appellees file a consolidated statement of position. The attorneys confirmed at oral argument that in response to the District NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. Court’s request they submitted a proposed opinion and order of court, which the District Court adopted nearly verbatim, as I. its opinion and order. Therefore, Bright asserts that he is appealing an order John Bright appeals the dismissal of his supported by an opinion that were complaint. Bright’s claims arose when ghostwritten by appellees’ counsel. Charles Koschalk murdered one of Bright’s daughters, Annette. At the time At our request, counsel for the of the murder, Koschalk was on probation appellees supplied us with a copy of the after pleading guilty to corrupting the proposed memorandum opinion and order morals of Annette Bright’s sister. The that they had submitted to the District District Court dismissed all of Bright’s claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s order. Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 1. 906 (3d Cir. 1997). Though not spelled out by Bright in his brief, our review of the District Court II. docket indicates that a case conference In his brief, Bright focused all of his was scheduled to be held on September argument, except for a single footnote, on 17, 2003, that the appellees’ motions to the merits of the District Court opinion. dismiss were filed on September 12 and That single footnote, however, raises a 16 and Bright’s response to those procedural impropriety underlying the motions was not filed until September District Court’s opinion that undermines 26. This sequence of events in consistent with Bright’s argument.
2 Court. 2 This proposed opinion is nearly Bright complains about the District identical to the opinion filed by the District Court’s procedure, stating that “[i]t is hard Court. Other than minor grammatical and to reconcile this evident overreaching with stylistic edits, the District Court made only plaintiff’s reasonable expectations as a two substantive changes. First, in the litigant for a fair and independent judicial analysis section of the opinion, the District review of his claim.” Appellant’s Brief at Court struck a single sentence from the n.2. We agree and will reverse and appellees’ proposed opinion. Second, the remand the cause to the District Court with District Court added a section that orders to engage in an independent judicial dismissed the claims against Koschalk for review of Bright’s claims and the lack of jurisdiction. appellee’s motion to dismiss, and, should it again decide to dismiss, for it to prepare Importantly, the District Court did not an opinion explaining the reasons for its substantively alter the section in the order. proposed opinion that dismissed Bright’s state law claims based on the Pennsylvania III. Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act We have held that the adoption of (“P.S.T.C.A.”). 42 Pa. C.S. § 8541 et seq. proposed findings of fact and conclusions This is significant because nowhere in of law supplied by prevailing parties after appellees’ motions to dismiss do they a bench trial, although disapproved of, is argue that Bright’s state law claims are not in and of itself reason for reversal. barred under the P.S.T.C.A. The District See Anderson v. Bessemer City, N.C., 470 Court, however, adopted this section of the U.S. 564, 572 (1985) (“[E]ven when the appellees’ proposed opinion without any trial judge adopts the findings verbatim, real modification or explanation, again the findings are those of the court and may excepting minor stylistic changes. be reversed only if clearly erroneous.”); Lansford-Coaldale Joint Water Auth. v. Tonolli Corp., 4 F.3d 1209, 1215-16 (3d 2. Cir. 1993) (disapproving of the verbatim The District Court’s docket sheet does adoption of proposed findings of fact but not indicate that this proposed opinion acknowledging the rule announced in and order were ever filed and there is no Anderson and noting that there was “no certificate of service attached to the copy indication in the record that the district of the document that appellees have court was unfamiliar with the testimony or submitted to us. Because this document exhibits or that it was using the proposed does not appear in any other public filing findings as a crutch; if [there were such an and it is of central importance to this indication] we might view the matter appeal, we have included a copy of it differently”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
8-24-2004
Bright v. Westmoreland Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential
Docket No. 03-4320
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation "Bright v. Westmoreland" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 355. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/355
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. PRECEDENTIAL APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES COURT OF FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT PENNSYLVANIA ___________ (D.C. No. 03-cv-01072) District Judge The Honorable Arthur J. No. 03-4320 Schwab ___________ ___________ JOHN BRIGHT, Individually and in his capacity as Administrator ARGUED MAY 12, 2004 of the ESTATE OF ANNETTE BRIGHT, deceased, BEFORE: NYGAARD, McKEE, and CHERTOFF Circuit Judges. Appellant (Filed August 24, 2004) v. ___________
WESTMORELAND COUNTY; TAMI Peter M. Suwak, Esq. (Argued) WHALEN, Individually and in her P.O. Box 1 capacity as a Probation Officer for Pete's Surplus Building Westmoreland County; RICHARD Washington, PA 15301 YESKO, Individually and in his capacity Counsel for Appellant as a Probation Officer for Westmoreland County; ANTHONY C. GUINTA, Individually and in his capacity as Thomas P. Pellis, Esq. (Argued) Probation Supervisor for Westmoreland Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck County; CITY OF MONESSEN; CARL 114 South Main Street FRANZAGLIO, Individually and in his Greensburg, PA 15601 capacity as a Police Officer for the City Counsel for A ppellee County of of Monessen; PAUL S. KUNTZ, Westmoreland, et. al. Individually and in his capacity as Court Administrator for the Westmoreland Thomas P. McGinnis, Esq. (Argued) County Court of Common Pleas; JOHN Thomas, Thomas & Hafer PECK, Individually and in his capacity 301 Grant Street as District Attorney of Westmoreland One Oxford Centre, Suite 1150 County; CHARLES KOSCHALK Pittsburgh, PA 15219 ___________ Counsel for Appellee City of Monessen, et. al. Mary E. Butler, Esq. (Argued) the legitimacy of the dismissal order. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania relevant footnote asserts that during a Administrative Office of PA Courts preliminary case conference, which 1515 Market Street, Suite 1414 occurred before the due date for or the Philadelphia, PA 19102 filing of Bright’s response to the Counsel for Paul S. Kuntz, etc. appellees’ motions to dismiss,1 the District Court indicated that it planned to dismiss ___________ Bright’s complaint on the basis of an unpublished District Court decision. At OPINION OF THE COURT this conference, the District Court also ___________ requested that in lieu of a reply brief the appellees file a consolidated statement of position. The attorneys confirmed at oral argument that in response to the District NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. Court’s request they submitted a proposed opinion and order of court, which the District Court adopted nearly verbatim, as I. its opinion and order. Therefore, Bright asserts that he is appealing an order John Bright appeals the dismissal of his supported by an opinion that were complaint. Bright’s claims arose when ghostwritten by appellees’ counsel. Charles Koschalk murdered one of Bright’s daughters, Annette. At the time At our request, counsel for the of the murder, Koschalk was on probation appellees supplied us with a copy of the after pleading guilty to corrupting the proposed memorandum opinion and order morals of Annette Bright’s sister. The that they had submitted to the District District Court dismissed all of Bright’s claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s order. Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 1. 906 (3d Cir. 1997). Though not spelled out by Bright in his brief, our review of the District Court II. docket indicates that a case conference In his brief, Bright focused all of his was scheduled to be held on September argument, except for a single footnote, on 17, 2003, that the appellees’ motions to the merits of the District Court opinion. dismiss were filed on September 12 and That single footnote, however, raises a 16 and Bright’s response to those procedural impropriety underlying the motions was not filed until September District Court’s opinion that undermines 26. This sequence of events in consistent with Bright’s argument.
2 Court. 2 This proposed opinion is nearly Bright complains about the District identical to the opinion filed by the District Court’s procedure, stating that “[i]t is hard Court. Other than minor grammatical and to reconcile this evident overreaching with stylistic edits, the District Court made only plaintiff’s reasonable expectations as a two substantive changes. First, in the litigant for a fair and independent judicial analysis section of the opinion, the District review of his claim.” Appellant’s Brief at Court struck a single sentence from the n.2. We agree and will reverse and appellees’ proposed opinion. Second, the remand the cause to the District Court with District Court added a section that orders to engage in an independent judicial dismissed the claims against Koschalk for review of Bright’s claims and the lack of jurisdiction. appellee’s motion to dismiss, and, should it again decide to dismiss, for it to prepare Importantly, the District Court did not an opinion explaining the reasons for its substantively alter the section in the order. proposed opinion that dismissed Bright’s state law claims based on the Pennsylvania III. Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act We have held that the adoption of (“P.S.T.C.A.”). 42 Pa. C.S. § 8541 et seq. proposed findings of fact and conclusions This is significant because nowhere in of law supplied by prevailing parties after appellees’ motions to dismiss do they a bench trial, although disapproved of, is argue that Bright’s state law claims are not in and of itself reason for reversal. barred under the P.S.T.C.A. The District See Anderson v. Bessemer City, N.C., 470 Court, however, adopted this section of the U.S. 564, 572 (1985) (“[E]ven when the appellees’ proposed opinion without any trial judge adopts the findings verbatim, real modification or explanation, again the findings are those of the court and may excepting minor stylistic changes. be reversed only if clearly erroneous.”); Lansford-Coaldale Joint Water Auth. v. Tonolli Corp., 4 F.3d 1209, 1215-16 (3d 2. Cir. 1993) (disapproving of the verbatim The District Court’s docket sheet does adoption of proposed findings of fact but not indicate that this proposed opinion acknowledging the rule announced in and order were ever filed and there is no Anderson and noting that there was “no certificate of service attached to the copy indication in the record that the district of the document that appellees have court was unfamiliar with the testimony or submitted to us. Because this document exhibits or that it was using the proposed does not appear in any other public filing findings as a crutch; if [there were such an and it is of central importance to this indication] we might view the matter appeal, we have included a copy of it differently”). However, we made clear along with a copy of the District Court’s that the findings of fact adopted by the opinion as an appendix to the opinion we court must be the result of the trial judge’s have filed.
3 independent judgment. Pa. Envtl. Def. than findings of fact and conclusions of Found.: (PEDF) v. Canon-McMillian Sch. law; they constitute the logical and Dist., 152 F.3d 228, 233 (3d Cir. 1998) analytical explanations of why a judge (citing with approval Odeco, Inc. v. arrived at a specific decision. They are Avondale Shipyards, Inc. 663 F.2d 650, tangible proof to the litigants that the judge 652-53 (5th Cir. 1981)). “The central actively wrestled with their claims and issue is whether the district court had made arguments and made a scholarly decision an independent judgment.” Id. based on his or her own reason and logic. When a court adopts a party’s proposed Here, however, we are not dealing with opinion as its own, the court vitiates the findings of fact. Instead, we are vital purposes served by judicial opinions. confronted with a District Court opinion We, therefore, cannot condone the practice that is essentially a verbatim copy of the used by the District Court in this case. appellees’ proposed opinion. This fact, even standing alone, would be enough for There is, however, an additional reason us to distinguish the holdings in why a reversal and remand is the Anderson and Lansford-Coaldale. We appropriate remedy in this case. We have agree with the Court of Appeals for the made it clear that the linchpin in using Fourth Circuit’s observation that: findings of fact, even when they are verbatim adoptions of the parties’ There is authority for the proposals, is evidence that they are the submission to the court of proposed product of the trial court’s independent findings of fact and conclusions of judgment. PEDF, 152 F.3d at 233. In this law by the attorneys for the case, there is no record evidence which opposing parties in a case, and the would allow us to conclude that the adoption of such of the proposed District Court conducted its own findings and conclusions as the independent review, or that the opinion is judge may find to be proper. . . . the product of its own judgment. In fact, But there is no authority in the the procedure used by the District Court federal courts that countenances the casts doubt on the possibility of such a preparation of the opinion by the conclusion. attorney for either side. That practice involves the failure of the According to Bright’s unrebutted trial judge to perform his judicial assertions, the District Court indicated that function. it was going to grant appellee’s motions to dismiss before it even received Bright’s Chicopee Mfg. Corp. v. Kendall Co., 288 response to those motions. Indeed, Bright F.2d 719, 725 (4th Cir. 1961) (emphasis claims, again without a rebuttal, that he did added). not have the opportunity to object or even Judicial opinions are the core work- respond to the submitted opinion and order product of judges. They are much more
4 before the District Court adopted them as its own. Courts and judges exist to provide neutral fora in which persons and entities can have their professional disputes and personal crises resolved. Any degree of impropriety, or even the appearance thereof, undermines our legitimacy and effectiveness. We therefore hold that the District Court’s adoption of the appellees’ proposed opinion and order, coupled with the procedure it used to solicit them, was improper and requires reversal with a remand for the court to reevaluate the appellees’ motion to dismiss in a procedure consistent with this opinion.