Jane Adkins v. John Sogliuzzo, 625 F. App'x 565

Jane Adkins (plaintiff) and John Sogliuzzo (defendant) are beneficiaries of estates of Jane Sogliuzzo and Mary Grimley; Sogliuzzo served as executor and had power of attorney for Grimley’s accounts.
Adkins alleged Sogliuzzo mismanaged funds (including redemption of Grimley’s savings bonds and diversion of cash found in Grimley’s home) and brought many claims: undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.
In state probate proceedings Adkins, as executor, obtained a judgment against Sogliuzzo for undue influence over Jane Sogliuzzo (affirmed on appeal).
District Court granted summary judgment to Haven Savings Bank (Adkins was not a bank customer and no special relationship existed), and granted partial summary judgment re: some claims; after a five-day bench trial the District Court found Sogliuzzo liable on several counts but declined to calculate damages and deferred to the probate court; Torrance (Sogliuzzo’s wife) was held not liable.
On appeal, this Court affirmed liability rulings in part (including adverse inference against Sogliuzzo for invoking the Fifth Amendment), affirmed dismissal of claims against Torrance, affirmed summary judgment for Haven, but reversed and remanded for the District Court to make explicit findings on damages for claims where it found liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether District Court erred by not awarding damages after finding Sogliuzzo liable	Adkins: Court must award damages once liability established	Sogliuzzo: Adkins failed to prove damages; court could find no cause	Court: Reversed District Court’s deferral to probate court; remanded for explicit damages findings by District Court
Whether adverse inference for invoking Fifth Amendment was proper	Adkins: invocation justified adverse inference to aid factfinding	Sogliuzzo: invocation cannot be penalized; adverse inference improper	Court: Affirmed adverse inference as balanced and permissible in civil litigation
Whether Haven Bank owed duty to Adkins for alleged wrongful redemptions/withdrawals	Adkins: as Grimley beneficiary she had an actionable relationship with Haven	Haven: No special relationship; Adkins not a customer, so no duty	Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Haven; no special relationship and no duty owed
Whether Torrance and related evidentiary rulings were erroneous	Adkins: Torrance deposition wrongly excluded; accounting and husband’s testimony wrongly barred; Torrance liable	Torrance/Sogliuzzo: Deposition exclusion and witness-limiting rulings were within court discretion; evidence insufficient to show culpability	Court: Affirmed rulings; Torrance found not liable; evidentiary exclusions were not abuse of discretion

City Check Cashing, Inc. v. Mfrs. Hanover Trust Co., 764 A.2d 411 (N.J. 2001) (duty analysis; non-customers typically cannot sue banks absent special relationship)
Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (denial of summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable after trial)
SEC v. Graystone Nash, Inc., 25 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 1994) (Fifth Amendment invocation in civil cases may permit adverse inference; courts must balance prejudice)
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (Sup. Ct. 1976) (permissibility of adverse inferences where a party refuses to testify in civil proceedings)
In re Semcrude, L.P., 728 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2013) (federal courts must exercise jurisdiction conferred by Congress; cannot abdicate to other tribunals)
E. C. Ernst, Inc. v. Koppers Co., 626 F.2d 324 (3d Cir. 1980) (remand required where district court found liability but failed to make findings on damages)
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (Sup. Ct. 1996) (federal courts’ duty to exercise jurisdiction)