D. Cook v. City of Philadelphia, 2304 C.D. 2015

Background

Plaintiff Daryl Cook, incarcerated after a 2010 murder conviction, sued the City of Philadelphia and multiple individuals alleging false arrest, coerced confession, assault while jailed, malicious prosecution, legal malpractice, and related civil-rights and tort claims.
Several defendants were dismissed; default judgments were entered against Detectives Rodden and Dean after no timely response, but those defaults were later opened/vacated on petition by counsel for the City/remaining defendants.
At a January 2015 video status/settlement conference the court, the City attorney, and Cook agreed on the record that the City would pay $2,500 as a "total settlement of this civil lawsuit," and the court marked the case settled; Cook later refused to sign the release, defendants moved to enforce, the court granted enforcement, and Cook ultimately signed the release.
Cook moved (Aug. 2015) to strike the settlement and reinstate the prior default judgment, arguing defects in the order opening the default (no rule to show cause / lack of service), that he intended to settle only against two defendants and that he sought non‑monetary relief (release/expungement) that the court lacked power to grant, and that he was coerced to sign the release.
The trial court denied Cook’s motion; the Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding the on‑the‑record oral agreement to a total settlement was enforceable, procedural defects preceding settlement were waived by the settlement, duress claim failed, and the malpractice claims against Cook’s former criminal attorney were properly dismissed for failure to file a compliant certificate of merit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s order opening the default judgment was void for lack of a rule to show cause and service	Cook: lack of service and no rule to show cause under local rule violated due process, rendering subsequent orders void	Defs: procedural challenge waived by Cook’s later oral total settlement of the entire case	Held: Waived — Cook’s on‑the‑record acceptance of a $2,500 total settlement terminated those procedural claims and is enforceable
Whether the oral settlement on the record was binding and encompassed all claims/parties	Cook: he intended to settle only against Rodden and Dean and preserve other claims; he expected admissions to be used to seek criminal relief	Defs: court on record offered $2,500 to settle the whole lawsuit; Cook accepted; oral agreement is enforceable	Held: Binding — oral agreement contained all material terms and settled the entire lawsuit
Whether Cook signed the release under duress / coercion (and whether settlement enforcement was improper)	Cook: defendants threatened nonpayment and coerced him into signing release after he initially refused	Defs: enforcement letter merely informed Cook that payment depended on returning the release consistent with his earlier agreement	Held: No duress — Cook had agreed to sign a release to receive payment; letter did not constitute coercion invalidating settlement
Whether Cook’s legal malpractice claim against Mandell was properly dismissed for failure to comply with Pa. R.C.P. 1042.3 (certificate of merit)	Cook: asserted various tort theories against Mandell and at one point claimed he could justify no expert or have one appointed due to pauper status	Mandell: malpractice claims require certificate of merit with a supporting written statement by a licensed professional; Cook did not provide one	Held: Affirmed — Cook failed to file a compliant certificate of merit; dismissal (judgment of non pros) proper

Key Cases Cited

Mazella v. Koken, 739 A.2d 531 (Pa. 1999) (settlement enforceability governed by contract principles; oral agreements can be binding if material terms agreed)
Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod & Gutnick, 587 A.2d 1346 (Pa. 1991) (elements of enforceable settlement: offer, acceptance, consideration)
Kazanjian v. New England Petroleum Corp., 480 A.2d 1153 (Pa. 1984) (oral agreements in court can bind parties)
Womer v. Hilliker, 908 A.2d 269 (Pa. 2006) (failure to comply with Rule 1042.3 is fatal in professional liability actions)
Hoover v. Davila, 862 A.2d 591 (Pa. Super. 2004) (pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules like certificate of merit requirements)
Pulcinello v. Consol. Rail Corp., 784 A.2d 122 (Pa. Super. 2001) (oral settlement enforceable despite later change of heart)
Rizzo v. Haines, 555 A.2d 58 (Pa. 1989) (expert testimony generally required in legal malpractice to establish standard of care)
Farner v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 869 A.2d 1075 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (unilateral mistake does not ordinarily vitiate a valid release)
Regscan, Inc. v. Con‑Way Transp. Servs., 875 A.2d 332 (Pa. Super. 2005) (relief for mistake may be available where non‑mistaken party knows of the mistake)