Ke, L v. Fry, J.
Ke, L v. Fry, J. No. 2587 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 15, 2017Background
- Appellant Ke was a Drexel University medical student who received the 2006 Student Handbook and later incurred failing grades (four Us in second year), repeated courses at substantial cost, then proceeded to clinical rotations.
- Ke received a failing ("U") grade in a Family Medicine clerkship and failed the associated shelf exam and Step 1; Drexel imposed conditions in 2009 and again in February 2011 (including that any grade less than Satisfactory could result in dismissal).
- Ke ultimately received a marginally unsatisfactory ("MU") in OB/GYN after failing the shelf exam and was dismissed; his internal appeals at Drexel were unsuccessful.
- Ke previously sued in federal court alleging racially-motivated breach of contract (claim based on the Student Handbook and alleged modifications); district court granted summary judgment for defendants, Third Circuit affirmed, and Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Ke then sued in Pennsylvania state court alleging violations of the UTPCPL based on Drexel’s alleged fraudulent modification of the 2006 Student Handbook; defendants moved to dismiss asserting collateral estoppel/res judicata based on the federal proceedings.
- The trial court sustained defendants’ preliminary objections and dismissed Ke’s complaint; the Superior Court affirmed, holding collateral estoppel barred relitigation of the same issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court judgment bars Ke's state UTPCPL action | Ke contended the federal judgment was invalid/should not preclude his state claims | Defendants argued federal judgment is final and preclusive on the same underlying issues | Held: Federal judgment is final and preclusive; state action barred by collateral estoppel |
| Whether collateral estoppel applies without issue-specific identification | Ke claimed collateral estoppel requires specification of the precise issue precluded | Defendants asserted all collateral-estoppel factors are met by the prior federal adjudication | Held: All five collateral estoppel factors satisfied; preclusion applies (issues identical, final on merits, same parties, full&fair opportunity, essential to prior judgment) |
| Whether Drexel’s conduct supports a UTPCPL claim independent of breach-of-contract issue | Ke argued the UTPCPL claim alleges deceptive modification of handbook terms distinct from contract breach | Defendants maintained the UTPCPL claim rests on the same contract-interpretation facts already litigated and decided | Held: Court did not reach merits because claim is precluded as it depends on the same adjudicated issue |
| Preservation of certain arguments raised on appeal | Ke raised additional federal-questions argument and objections to preliminary rulings | Defendants argued those matters were not preserved below | Held: Issues not raised in the Rule 1925(b) statement or below were unpreserved and not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Reardon v. Allegheny College, 926 A.2d 477 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for sustaining preliminary objections/demurrer)
- Catroppa v. Carlton, 998 A.2d 643 (Pa. Super. 2010) (listing factors for collateral estoppel)
- Day v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 464 A.2d 1313 (Pa. Super. 1983) (collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of finally adjudicated issues)
- Shaffer v. Smith, 673 A.2d 872 (Pa. 1996) (finality of judgment for preclusion purposes)
- In re Stevenson, 40 A.3d 1212 (Pa. 2012) (federal judgments are entitled to full faith and credit in state court)