E. Collins and G. Dieffenbach v. E. Crago, T. Scott, M. Garman, 1876 C.D. 2016

Background

In March 2005 Plaintiffs Eddie Collins and Gary Dieffenbach filed and served a writ of summons on the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and its Secretary Greg Fajt; counsel for the Attorney General entered an appearance for them.
Plaintiffs did not file a formal complaint until May 25, 2012 (with an amended complaint in July 2012) alleging race discrimination, harassment and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3)/1986, the PHRA, and the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law; they added 17+ additional defendants in 2012.
Between 2005 and 2012 both plaintiffs separately pursued multiple federal suits against many of the same defendants; those federal suits were unsuccessful (some resulted in judgment for defendants, one was dismissed for failure to prosecute).
The trial court initially sustained preliminary objections by Fajt and the Department on statute-of-limitations grounds; this Court (Dieffenbach I) reversed as to Fajt/Department because the 2005 writ tolled limitations and remanded to consider res judicata and separate objections by the other defendants.
On remand the trial court held: (1) claims against the additional defendants (not served in 2005) are time-barred under the applicable limitations periods; and (2) Dieffenbach’s claims against Fajt/Department are barred by res judicata based on his prior federal judgment, while Collins’ claims were also treated as barred by res judicata.
This appeal affirmed the time-bar rulings as to the additional defendants and affirmed res judicata as to Dieffenbach, but reversed the res judicata dismissal of Collins’ claims and remanded for further proceedings as to Collins.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims against additional defendants (not served in 2005) are time‑barred	Plaintiffs relied on the 2005 writ served on Department/Fajt to toll limitations for all defendants	Additional defendants were not served in 2005; claims arise from 2004–2007 and exceed applicable limitations	Held: Claims against additional defendants are time‑barred; affirm trial court
Whether continuing violations doctrine saves time‑barred claims	Plaintiffs argued related acts form a continuing violation extending into the limitations period	Defendants argued alleged acts ended by 2007 so doctrine does not apply	Held: Continuing‑violation doctrine inapplicable; no acts within limitations period
Whether Dieffenbach’s claims against Fajt/Department are barred by res judicata	Dieffenbach argued prior federal litigation did not preclude state suit	Defendants pointed to final judgment in Dieffenbach’s federal case on same causes	Held: Dieffenbach’s state claims barred by res judicata; affirmed
Whether Collins’ claims against Fajt/Department are barred by res judicata	Collins argued prior federal suits did not present same claims or were not finally adjudicated	Defendants relied on two prior federal suits (one dismissed for failure to prosecute; one resulting in a 2006 judgment)	Held: Trial court erred as to Collins; one federal dismissal was not on merits and the prior judgment related to earlier events (pre‑2004), so Collins’ claims are not barred; reversed and remanded for Collins

Key Cases Cited

Galbraith v. Gahagen, 204 A.2d 251 (Pa. 1964) (timely writ of summons tolls statute of limitations)
Sheets v. Liberty Homes, Inc., 823 A.2d 1016 (Pa. Super. 2003) (service of writ prevents need to reissue to preserve limitations)
Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1985) (§1983 claims treated as personal injury for statute of limitations)
Burger v. Borough of Ingram, 697 A.2d 1037 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (two‑year limitations for §1983 actions in Pennsylvania)
Burgh v. Borough Council of Borough of Montrose, 251 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2001) (Title VII 90‑day filing rule treated as statute of limitations)
Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2013) (continuing‑violation doctrine requirements)
Dieffenbach v. Dep’t of Revenue, [citation="490 F. App'x 433"] (3d Cir. 2012) (affirming summary judgment for defendants in prior federal action)