516 F. App'x 223
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Feingold, a pro se former attorney, sued Harris and several related parties over Harris's workers' compensation case, claiming quantum meruit and other tort theories.
- The District Court dismissed all claims as time-barred or meritless, and sua sponte dismissed Harris from the case.
- Feingold's involvement in Harris's case ended by 2007, though the complaint was filed in 2012, triggering the statute of limitations analysis for quantum meruit and fees.
- Feingold alleged a scheme by Giant (Harris's employer) and MAC to use favorable medical experts, with MDWCG alleged to assist, and sought punitive damages.
- Appellees moved for costs and fees under Rule 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927; the district court's dismissal was upheld, and sanctions considerations were addressed on appeal.
- The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of all substantive claims and awarded appellate fees, costs, and expenses to the fee-appellees, remanding for damages assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly noticed facts about Feingold's disciplinary history | Feingold contends the district court improperly took judicial notice and failed to give notice of conversion. | Appellees prevail on the proper use of judicial notice under Rule 201 and related authorities. | No abuse of discretion; judicial notice proper and notice not required for conversion. |
| Whether Feingold's quantum meruit claim against Harris is time-barred | Feingold seeks quantum meruit for work on Harris's case and advances related fee claims. | The action accrued in 2007 when Feingold ceased representation; filing in 2012 is untimely. | Time-barred; the claim dismissed. |
| Whether Feingold's fraud claim was properly dismissed for lack of reliance and pleading deficiencies | Feingold asserts misrepresentations by Appellees affected Harris's outcome. | Plaintiff failed to plead reliance and did not satisfy Rule 9(b)'s specificity. | Dismissed for lack of reliance and failure to plead with particularity. |
| Whether Feingold's abuse of process and civil conspiracy claims were time-barred or properly dismissed | Feingold alleges improper litigation tactics and conspiratorial actions by the Appellees. | Claims are time-barred or derivative of dismissed underlying claims. | Dismissed as time-barred or because underlying claims were properly dismissed. |
| Whether sanctions and fees under Rule 38 and § 1927 should be awarded to Appellees | Feingold disputes sanctions and argues lack of merit in Appellees' fee request. | Appeal frivolous; Feingold has a history of vexatious litigation and sanctions are warranted. | Fees, costs, and expenses awarded; remanded to assess damages; warning issued against continued frivolous filings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must be plausible, not merely speculative)
- Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (U.S. 2007) (court may consider judicial notice in Rule 12(b)(6) rulings)
- Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007) (requires specificity in fraud pleadings)
- Gibbs v. Ernst, 647 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1994) (elements of common law fraud including justifiable reliance)
- Fowkes v. Shoemaker, 661 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) (quantum meruit accrual when attorney ceases representation)
- United States v. Mitchell, 365 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2004) (standard for review of judicial notice decisions)
- R & J Holding Co. v. Redevelopment Auth. of Montgomery County, 670 F.3d 420 (3d Cir. 2011) (plaintiff's burden on appellate review of dismissal rulings)
- Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010) (frivolous appellate sanctions and costs considerations)
- Pioneer Commercial Funding Corp. v. American Fin. Mortg. Corp., 855 A.2d 818 (Pa. 2004) (punitive damages limitations and relation to underlying claims)
- Kirkbride v. Lisbon Contractors, Inc., 555 A.2d 800 (Pa. 1989) (punitive damages principles in Pennsylvania law)