Saterstad, E. v. Lock, J.
Saterstad, E. v. Lock, J. No. 337 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Feb 13, 2017Background
- In 2001 Saterstad was arrested after a minor (SC) identified him and reported an offer; he retained attorney Joshua D. Lock of GKS to defend and paid $12,500. Trial occurred in 2003 and Saterstad was convicted.
- Saterstad sued multiple lawyers and firms alleging breach of contract, legal malpractice/professional liability, abuse of process, UTPCPL violations, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), fraud/inducement, negligent supervision, and related claims. Multiple defendants included Lock, Goldberg Katzman & Shipman (GKS), Kathy Murray, Skip Gochenour/Gochenhour, Courtney Kishel, and JSDC.
- Over several years the trial court allowed multiple amended complaints (up to a sixth amended complaint) but sustained numerous preliminary objections and ultimately dismissed with prejudice for failure to state viable claims and, where applicable, failure to file required Certificates of Merit.
- The trial court held (and the Superior Court agreed) that most pleaded counts were effectively professional liability claims requiring Certificates of Merit under Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3 and that Saterstad either failed to plead required elements (e.g., breach, abuse of process, IIED) or attempted to recast malpractice as other torts (e.g., UTPCPL) improperly.
- The Superior Court affirmed dismissal with prejudice because Saterstad had multiple chances to amend and repeatedly failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court err in dismissing the Sixth Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to state claims? | Saterstad: complaint pleaded prima facie claims and deficiencies could be cured; dismissal was improper. | Defendants: complaints failed to plead essential elements of asserted causes (breach, abuse of process, IIED); dismissal appropriate. | Court: Affirmed — complaints failed to plead required elements; dismissal with prejudice proper after repeated amendment opportunities. |
| Whether breach of contract claim against Lock was adequately pled (or is really malpractice)? | Saterstad: alleged Lock agreed to pursue innocence defenses but failed to do so — breach of contract. | Lock/defendants: representation was performed; allegations essentially professional negligence/malpractice, not a contractual breach sufficient to state claim. | Court: Held claim inadequately pled; treating facts as malpractice, plaintiff failed to plead requisite elements. |
| Whether professional-liability-based counts required a Certificate of Merit under Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3 and whether one was provided. | Saterstad: many claims distinct from negligence/professional liability and thus did not require Certificate of Merit. | Defendants: most claims sound in professional liability and plaintiff failed to timely file required Certificate of Merit. | Court: Held Rule 1042.3 applies; plaintiff failed to provide required certificate after multiple chances — dismissal proper. |
| Whether UTPCPL, abuse of process, and IIED claims survive as pleaded. | Saterstad: claims stated viable causes (e.g., UTPCPL/IIED/abuse of process). | Defendants: UTPCPL does not apply to attorney misconduct; abuse of process and IIED lacked essential elements (e.g., improper purpose; extreme/outrageous conduct). | Court: Held for defendants — UTPCPL inapplicable to attorney conduct; abuse of process and IIED inadequately pled or waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brosovic v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 841 A.2d 1071 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard of review and analysis for preliminary objections and sufficiency of pleadings)
- Clemleddy Const., Inc. v. Yorston, 810 A.2d 693 (Pa. Super. 2002) (standards for sustaining preliminary objections)
- Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C. v. Law Firm of Malone Middleman, P.C., 137 A.3d 1247 (Pa. 2016) (elements required to plead breach of contract)
- Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229 (Pa. Super. 2008) (elements of abuse of process claim)
- Shiner v. Moriarty, 706 A.2d 1228 (Pa. Super. 1998) (abuse of process discussion)
- Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425 (Pa. 2004) (UTPCPL private cause requirements — justifiable reliance and causation)
- Beyers v. Richmond, 937 A.2d 1082 (Pa. 2007) (plurality) (attorney misconduct generally not remediable under UTPCPL; disciplinary rules are exclusive remedy)
- Hoy v. Angelone, 691 A.2d 476 (Pa. Super. 1997) (elements and standards for intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Gray v. Huntzinger, 147 A.3d 924 (Pa. Super. 2016) (definition and high threshold for extreme and outrageous conduct in IIED claims)