BLD-071 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________
No. 24-2978 ___________
DAWN PERLMUTTER; THOMAS BOLICK
v.
TRINA VARONE; JEFFREY VARONE, H/W; SUTTON INVESTMENTS LLC; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
THOMAS BOLICK, Appellant ____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-21-cv-05018) District Judge: R. Barclay Surrick ____________________________________
Submitted on Appellees’ Motion for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 January 23, 2025 Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 5, 2025) _________
OPINION * _________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM
Thomas Bolick appeals pro se from the District Court’s order dismissing his
complaint. We will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R.
27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
Bolick and Dawn Perlmutter filed an amended complaint in the Eastern District
Court of Pennsylvania seeking “the return of stolen property.” Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 13 at 1.
According to the complaint, Bolick and Perlmutter had inheritance rights to Joan Sutton’s
estate, but defendants Trina and Jeffrey Varone fraudulently gained control over the
estate and conspired to deny the plaintiffs access to fair court proceedings. Bolick and
Perlmutter brought First Amendment, civil conspiracy, racketeering, and due process
claims against the Varones.
The complaint also alleged that the Varones received money from the United
States through contracts with Sutton Investments LLC, the business in which Sutton, the
decedent, had a controlling interest. Bolick and Perlmutter further alleged that the
Attorney General continued to do business with the Varones despite knowing that Bolick
and Perlmutter were “lawful owners of the contract,” that the Attorney General “breached
the contract by failing to include Plaintiffs in material matters,” and that the United States
was aware of the facts. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 13 at 7, 13. Bolick and Perlmutter brought due
process and breach-of-contract claims against the federal defendants.
2 Perlmutter, Bolick, and the Varones have litigated Sutton’s estate for over a
decade. 1 The United States and the Attorney General moved to dismiss this complaint.
They argued in part that res judicata barred the plaintiffs’ claims against them, as the
claims had already been raised and dismissed in a prior lawsuit. See Perlmutter v.
Varone, No. 8:19-cv-03402, 2020 WL 2839097 (D. Md. June 1, 2020), aff’d, 848 F.
App’x 148 (4th Cir. May 25, 2021) (per curiam). The District Court granted the motion
and dismissed the complaint against all the defendants with prejudice. Bolick appealed
the District Court’s dismissal, and the United States, the Department of Justice, and the
Attorney General moved to summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. 2
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over
the District Court’s dismissal. See Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc.,
118 F.4th 567, 574 (3d Cir. 2024); Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Grp., Inc., 584 F.3d 169, 172
(3d Cir. 2009). We may affirm the District Court’s judgment for any reason supported by
the record, and we may summarily affirm the judgment if the appeal presents no
1 See, e.g., Perlmutter v. Varone, 59 F. Supp. 3d 107 (D.D.C. 2014); Perlmutter v. Varone, 645 F. App’x 249 (4th Cir. 2016); Perlmutter v. Varone, No. 2127, 2018 WL 1151597 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 5, 2018); Perlmutter v. Varone, No. 1652, 2020 WL 6707829 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 16, 2020); Sutton Invs. LLC v. Perlmutter, No. 1:21-cv-3226, 2021 WL 6062635 (D.D.C. Dec. 22, 2021); Perlmutter v. Sutton Invs., LLC, 284 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022). 2 Even though not all appellees filed a motion for summary affirmance, we advised all parties that we would consider the possibility of summary action as to all appellees. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. Bolick responded.
3 substantial question. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per
curiam).
To survive dismissal, the litigant’s complaint must allege sufficient facts to state a
plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). Although the
Court construes a pro se litigant’s claims liberally, see Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185
(3d Cir. 2021), mere conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim for relief,
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Res judicata requires “(1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving
(2) the same parties or their privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same cause of
action.” Davis v. Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d 333, 341 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Lubrizol Corp.
v. Exxon Corp., 929 F.2d 960, 963 (3d Cir. 1991)). “The doctrine of res judicata bars not
only claims that were brought in a previous action, but also claims that could have been
brought.” In re Mullarkey, 536 F.3d 215, 225 (3d Cir. 2008).
In 2020, Bolick and Perlmutter filed an amended complaint against the Varones,
the United States, and other defendants for conduct arising from the same alleged
fraudulent scheme driving the litigation in this case. Just as they did in this case, Bolick
and Perlmutter alleged in the Maryland District Court that the Varones fraudulently
gained control over Sutton’s estate and conspired and schemed to deny them fair access
to court proceedings. And Bolick and Perlmutter alleged that the United States was liable
under the Federal Tort Claims Act by contracting with Sutton Investments LLC and
authorizing or acquiescing in the Varones’ fraudulent conduct. The Maryland District
4 Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, in part because the plaintiffs failed to
allege plausibly that the Varones engaged in state action or conspired to deprive the
plaintiffs of a constitutional right, and the United States could not be held liable under the
Federal Tort Claims Act for the conduct of a privately-owned corporation. Perlmutter,
2020 WL 2839097, at *3-4. Having been affirmed by the Fourth Circuit, see Perlmutter,
848 F. App’x 148, the District Court order is a final judgment on the merits that precludes
most of the claims against the Varones. 3 See Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452
U.S. 394, 399 n.3 (1981).
Bolick argues that preclusion does not apply because the fraudulent scheme
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
BLD-071 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________
No. 24-2978 ___________
DAWN PERLMUTTER; THOMAS BOLICK
v.
TRINA VARONE; JEFFREY VARONE, H/W; SUTTON INVESTMENTS LLC; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
THOMAS BOLICK, Appellant ____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-21-cv-05018) District Judge: R. Barclay Surrick ____________________________________
Submitted on Appellees’ Motion for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 January 23, 2025 Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 5, 2025) _________
OPINION * _________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM
Thomas Bolick appeals pro se from the District Court’s order dismissing his
complaint. We will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R.
27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
Bolick and Dawn Perlmutter filed an amended complaint in the Eastern District
Court of Pennsylvania seeking “the return of stolen property.” Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 13 at 1.
According to the complaint, Bolick and Perlmutter had inheritance rights to Joan Sutton’s
estate, but defendants Trina and Jeffrey Varone fraudulently gained control over the
estate and conspired to deny the plaintiffs access to fair court proceedings. Bolick and
Perlmutter brought First Amendment, civil conspiracy, racketeering, and due process
claims against the Varones.
The complaint also alleged that the Varones received money from the United
States through contracts with Sutton Investments LLC, the business in which Sutton, the
decedent, had a controlling interest. Bolick and Perlmutter further alleged that the
Attorney General continued to do business with the Varones despite knowing that Bolick
and Perlmutter were “lawful owners of the contract,” that the Attorney General “breached
the contract by failing to include Plaintiffs in material matters,” and that the United States
was aware of the facts. Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 13 at 7, 13. Bolick and Perlmutter brought due
process and breach-of-contract claims against the federal defendants.
2 Perlmutter, Bolick, and the Varones have litigated Sutton’s estate for over a
decade. 1 The United States and the Attorney General moved to dismiss this complaint.
They argued in part that res judicata barred the plaintiffs’ claims against them, as the
claims had already been raised and dismissed in a prior lawsuit. See Perlmutter v.
Varone, No. 8:19-cv-03402, 2020 WL 2839097 (D. Md. June 1, 2020), aff’d, 848 F.
App’x 148 (4th Cir. May 25, 2021) (per curiam). The District Court granted the motion
and dismissed the complaint against all the defendants with prejudice. Bolick appealed
the District Court’s dismissal, and the United States, the Department of Justice, and the
Attorney General moved to summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. 2
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over
the District Court’s dismissal. See Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc.,
118 F.4th 567, 574 (3d Cir. 2024); Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Grp., Inc., 584 F.3d 169, 172
(3d Cir. 2009). We may affirm the District Court’s judgment for any reason supported by
the record, and we may summarily affirm the judgment if the appeal presents no
1 See, e.g., Perlmutter v. Varone, 59 F. Supp. 3d 107 (D.D.C. 2014); Perlmutter v. Varone, 645 F. App’x 249 (4th Cir. 2016); Perlmutter v. Varone, No. 2127, 2018 WL 1151597 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 5, 2018); Perlmutter v. Varone, No. 1652, 2020 WL 6707829 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 16, 2020); Sutton Invs. LLC v. Perlmutter, No. 1:21-cv-3226, 2021 WL 6062635 (D.D.C. Dec. 22, 2021); Perlmutter v. Sutton Invs., LLC, 284 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022). 2 Even though not all appellees filed a motion for summary affirmance, we advised all parties that we would consider the possibility of summary action as to all appellees. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. Bolick responded.
3 substantial question. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per
curiam).
To survive dismissal, the litigant’s complaint must allege sufficient facts to state a
plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). Although the
Court construes a pro se litigant’s claims liberally, see Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185
(3d Cir. 2021), mere conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim for relief,
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Res judicata requires “(1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving
(2) the same parties or their privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same cause of
action.” Davis v. Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d 333, 341 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Lubrizol Corp.
v. Exxon Corp., 929 F.2d 960, 963 (3d Cir. 1991)). “The doctrine of res judicata bars not
only claims that were brought in a previous action, but also claims that could have been
brought.” In re Mullarkey, 536 F.3d 215, 225 (3d Cir. 2008).
In 2020, Bolick and Perlmutter filed an amended complaint against the Varones,
the United States, and other defendants for conduct arising from the same alleged
fraudulent scheme driving the litigation in this case. Just as they did in this case, Bolick
and Perlmutter alleged in the Maryland District Court that the Varones fraudulently
gained control over Sutton’s estate and conspired and schemed to deny them fair access
to court proceedings. And Bolick and Perlmutter alleged that the United States was liable
under the Federal Tort Claims Act by contracting with Sutton Investments LLC and
authorizing or acquiescing in the Varones’ fraudulent conduct. The Maryland District
4 Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, in part because the plaintiffs failed to
allege plausibly that the Varones engaged in state action or conspired to deprive the
plaintiffs of a constitutional right, and the United States could not be held liable under the
Federal Tort Claims Act for the conduct of a privately-owned corporation. Perlmutter,
2020 WL 2839097, at *3-4. Having been affirmed by the Fourth Circuit, see Perlmutter,
848 F. App’x 148, the District Court order is a final judgment on the merits that precludes
most of the claims against the Varones. 3 See Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452
U.S. 394, 399 n.3 (1981).
Bolick argues that preclusion does not apply because the fraudulent scheme
continued after the District of Maryland’s judgment, and thus the amended complaint in
this case presented new facts. We need not resolve that issue because to the extent that
the claims are not precluded, they fail to meet the Iqbal standard. The complaint in this
case newly alleged that the Varones brought the matter to Pennsylvania to defame the
plaintiffs, and that they bribed a judge to grant a pre-filing injunction and disregard
record admissions, denying the plaintiffs due process and access to courts. Without
sufficient supporting facts, these conclusory allegations do not state a plausible claim
against the Varones. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted) (“A pleading that
offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
3 The plaintiffs argued that the District of Maryland judgment is void, but they offered no support other than bare allegations of fraud, corruption, and due process violations. They even moved for the District Court in this case to set aside the judgment from the District of Maryland pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) and (4), but the District Court reasonably denied the motion.
5 will not do.”). The contract and due process claims against the United States, the
Attorney General, and the Department of Justice similarly fail. See id.
Accordingly, the District Court did not err by dismissing the amended complaint.
Considering the plaintiffs’ litigation history, it was not an abuse of discretion to conclude
that further amendment would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d
103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). We have examined the District Court’s other rulings in this
case, and we discern no reversible error. Thus, we grant the motion for summary action
and will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.