Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-18-02602/USCOURTS-ca3-18-02602-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 18-2602

_____________

WILLIAM F. BROBST, JR.; 

ROXANNE BROBST, Husband & Wife; 

KESHIA BROBST,

 Appellants 

 

v.

DAVID W. CROSSETT, ESQ; WILLIAM F. BROBST, SR.; SMITH LAW GROUP 

LLC; JAMES M. SMITH, ESQ.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(District Court No. 5-16-cv-04051)

Magistrate Judge: Honorable Henry S. Perkin

______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

September 23, 2019

______________

Before: McKEE, AMBRO and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 25, 2020)

_______________________

OPINION*

_______________________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent. 

Case: 18-2602 Document: 71 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2020
2

McKEE, Circuit Judge.

Appellants appeal the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the 

defendants in this family dispute over possession of real property. For the reasons that 

follow, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the

Defendants.

1

I.

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, we view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the non-moving party.2 We refrain from making credibility 

determinations or weighing the evidence.

3

Plaintiffs claim that the District Court erred in distinguishing Jordan v. Fox, 

Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel.

4 They also argue that the abuse of a valid state 

procedure does not affect whether Defendants are state actors.

The District Court properly distinguished the circumstances here from those in

Jordan. This dispute involves a Writ of Possession, which is materially different from a 

judgment for possession.

5 Moreover, “Plaintiffs have not challenged the legality of the 

1 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of an order granting a 

motion for summary judgment is plenary. Albrecht v. Horn, 485 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 

2007).

2 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

3 Id.

4 20 F.3d 1250 (3d Cir. 1994).

5 Mikhail v. Kahn, 991 F. Supp. 2d 596, 651–52 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (explaining several 

distinguishing qualities, including automatic operation of the law, absence of judicial 

judgment, and discretion relinquished to private individuals).

Case: 18-2602 Document: 71 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2020
3

Pennsylvania statutes or Rules at issue,”6 and they do not dispute that the Pennsylvania 

Rules of Civil Procedure are otherwise a valid state procedure. Instead, Plaintiffs allege 

that Defendant Crossett violated the Rules by not providing notice. However, any such 

alleged misuse or abuse of Pennsylvania’s procedural Rules does not constitute state 

action. Indeed, a contrary ruling would convert everyone who violates a state procedural 

rule into a state actor for purposes of 1983 liability. Such a claim is patently frivolous.

II.

For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the District Court’s decision.

6 Brobst v. Brobst, No. 16-4051, 2018 WL 3032856, at *8 (E.D. Pa. June 19, 2018).

Case: 18-2602 Document: 71 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/25/2020