Langella v. Cercone
34 A.3d 835
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Langella was charged in 2007 with simple assault and harassment for allegedly striking her husband, with bail set at $5,000 unsecured.
- At a 2007 hearing before Judge Cercone, his bail decision was reviewed and later revoked after Langella allegedly violated bail, leading to 42 days in jail.
- Langella alleges Judge Cercone told her to “shut up,” refused to allow testimony about non-violation of bail terms, and denied requests for a preliminary hearing and reinstatement of bail during confinement, including alleged falsification of a court document.
- A December 2007 preliminary hearing occurred, and Langella was released; thereafter she found her home damaged and rescue animals dead.
- In December 2009 Langella met Cercone in his chambers to discuss his 2007 actions; Cercone escorted her from the office and allegedly suggested she needed psychiatric commitment.
- Langella filed a federal Section 1983 action; the district court held the 2007 acts were immunized by judicial immunity, but the 2009 meeting was not actionable for lack of judicial capacity in that context; Langella later filed a state complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which the trial court dismissed as barred by judicial immunity, prompting this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cercone is immune for the 2007 acts | Langella contends immunity does not apply to the 2007 acts. | Cercone contends all 2007 acts were judicial functions protected by immunity. | Immune for 2007 acts. |
| Whether Cercone is immune for the 2009 meeting | Langella asserts immunity covers the 2009 meeting as a judicial act. | Cercone contends immunity applies, relying on Mireles framework. | Not immune; lacked jurisdiction and not a judicial act; remand reinstates complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feingold v. Hill, 360 Pa.Super. 539, 521 A.2d 33 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987) (judicial immunity requires jurisdiction and judicial acts)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1978) (absolute immunity for judicial acts)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (Supreme Court, 1988) (distinguishes judicial vs non-judicial acts)
- Harper v. Merckle, 638 F.2d 848 (5th Cir. 1981) (factors for determining judicial act initiation in chambers)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (Supreme Court, 1991) (nature and function of act governs immunity, not act itself)
- Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (immunity analysis requires jurisdiction and judicial act context)
- Beam v. Daihl, 767 A.2d 585 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001) (immunity doctrine aims to protect independent judicial discretion)
- Petition of Dwyer, 406 A.2d 1355 (Pa. 1979) (factors for determining whether a judge acted judicially)
- In re Matter of XYP, 567 A.2d 1036 (Pa. 1989) (policy and scope of judicial immunity)