Hvizdak, R. v. Linn, D.
190 A.3d 1213
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- Richard Hvizdak and Michelle Hvizdak litigated a protracted divorce (2007–2013) in Butler County; Michelle was represented by Douglas and Jennifer Linn and the Linn Law Group.
- Post-divorce, Hvizdak filed a civil suit (May 2014) alleging RICO, conspiracy, fraud, abuse of process, and wrongful use of civil proceedings based on acts during the divorce (e.g., property seizures, alleged fraudulent court filings, passport seizure, appeals).
- The Allegheny County court transferred venue to Butler County; Hvizdak did not appeal that transfer within 30 days.
- In Butler County, Hvizdak sought recusal of the county bench and Judge Horan; Judge Horan denied recusal and later sustained preliminary objections to Hvizdak’s amended pleadings, allowing amendment up to the third amended complaint.
- Judge Horan dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice (June 9, 2017) for failure to state claims; Hvizdak appealed pro se to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it rejected venue challenge as forfeited, upheld denial of recusal, and held Hvizdak failed to plead racketeering predicate acts or a RICO pattern and that state tort claims were time‑barred or deficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue transfer from Allegheny to Butler | Transfer was improper because injury and defendants are located in Allegheny | Transfer was proper; appeal of venue order was required within 30 days | Forfeited: Hvizdak failed to timely appeal the venue transfer, so cannot challenge it now |
| Recusal of Butler County bench / Judge Horan | Judges were biased due to alleged prior animus by President Judge Doerr and community rumors | No evidence of bias; presumption judges are impartial; Horan had no prior involvement | Denial of recusal affirmed — Hvizdak offered only conjecture, not evidence of bias |
| Civil RICO (18 U.S.C. §1962) — predicate acts and pattern | Alleges multiple predicate acts (mail fraud, extortion, passport seizure, asset freezes, contempt filings) across 2007–2013 amounting to a racketeering pattern | Alleged acts do not satisfy Hobbs Act extortion or mail fraud predicates; single-victim, closed-ended scheme lacks RICO continuity/relatedness | Dismissed: pleadings failed to allege valid predicate acts or the continuity/relatedness required for a RICO pattern; §1962(d) conspiracy claim fails with substantive RICO claim |
| State torts: Abuse of process and wrongful use of civil proceedings (Dragonetti Act) | Abuse of process and wrongful continuation of proceedings caused harm; Dragonetti claim timely because underlying proceedings ended in 2013 | Abuse of process barred by two‑year statute (acts occurred >2 years before suit); Dragonetti claim lacks facts to show lack of probable cause or improper primary purpose | Abuse of process dismissed as time‑barred; Dragonetti (wrongful use) was timely but dismissed for failure to plead lack of probable cause or improper primary purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- Styers v. Bedford Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 900 A.2d 895 (Pa. Super. 2006) (rules on judicial notice of related proceedings)
- Estate of Schulz, 139 A.2d 560 (Pa. 1958) (judicial notice of proceedings involving same parties)
- Drohan v. Sorbus, Inc., 584 A.2d 964 (Pa. Super. 1990) (Pennsylvania courts have concurrent jurisdiction over civil RICO actions)
- H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1989) (pattern element requires continuity and relatedness)
- Lum v. Bank of America, 361 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2004) (RICO conspiracy claim fails if substantive RICO claims are deficient)
- In re Lokuta, 11 A.3d 427 (Pa. 2011) (presumption judges are honorable, fair, and competent; burden on party seeking recusal)
- Werner v. Plater–Zyberk, 799 A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. 2002) (elements of abuse of process)