2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C ir c uit 10-14-2005 

# Are n a v . M cS h ane P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3729

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Are n a v . M cS h ane " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 407. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005/407NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 04- 3729 

### PAUL A A RENA ; MI CH AE L L UO NG O, Ap p ellants v. J . PA TRI CK

MC SH AN E; TH E L AWOF FI CE S O F F ORKIN, MC SH AN E, MANO S &RO TZ , P. A.

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 03- cv- 07639) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J uan R . Sanchez Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember27, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O , A M B R O , and LO U R I E , * C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed O ct ober14, 2005)

OP I NI ON

* H o n o ra b le A lan D . L o u rie , C irc u it Ju d g e f o r th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls forthe Feder al C i r cui t , s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on.2

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge A p p e llan ts P a u la A re n a a n d M ich a e l L u o n g o c laim th a t J. P a trick M c S h a n e , the ir father ’ s l aw y er , i nt ent i onal l yi nt er fer ed w i th thei ri nher i t ance . A ppel l ant s ’ i nt ent i onal in ter f e re n c e c laim re q u ire d th e m to sh o w u n d u e in f lu e n c e , w h ich in tu rn re q u ire d th e m to s how thei rfather ’ s w eake ned i nt el l ect . A ppel l ant s al r eadym ade a n undue i nfl uence c laim a g a in st th e ir f

a th e r’s f rie n d in th e S u p e rio r C o u rt o f P e n n sy lv a n ia, a n d th is c laim w as di s m i s s ed on demur r er . I s s ue pr ecl us i on appl i es w hen an i s s ue has been f ul l yand fai r l yl i t i gat ed i n anothercourt . W as the ques t i on of A ppel l ant s ’ father ’ s w eake ned i n t e l l e c tf

u l l ya n d f

a i r l yl i t i g a t e d i n th e Su p e r i o rCou r t ’ s d e c i s i o n o n d e murr e r ? W e a n s we ry e s a n d th e r e f

o r e a f f i r m. I. F ac tual B ac k g rou n d an d P roc ed u ral H ist o ry B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe part i es , w e s etforth onl ythos e fa ct s r el evantt o our deci s i on. M os tof thes e fa ct s have be en det ai l ed i n Es tat e of Luongo , 823 A . 2d 942 ( Pa. Super . C t . 2003) . D r . R om eo Luongo di vor ced hi s w i fe i n 1978 and bec ame es tr anged fr om hi s ex- w i fe a nd thei rchi l dr en unt i l 1984, w hen meani ngful fami l ycomm uni cat i on r es um ed. I n a s er i es of w i l l s , he made no pr ovi s i on forhi s chi l dr en, unt i l 1995, w hen he lef t $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 to e a c h o f

h is c h ild re n a n d g ra n d c h ild re n in a n o th e r w ill . T h e b a lan c e o f h is e sta te h e lef

t to Ja c q u e lin e F letc h n e r, h is lo n g -tim e f rie n d a n d c o m p a n io n . T h e 1 9 9 5 w ill w as dr aft ed byM cShane, of the Law O ffi ces of For ki n, M cShane, M anos & R ot z. A ft er D r . L uongo di ed i n 1999, Fl et chnerpr obat ed the w i l l , and M i chae l L uongo chal l enged theT h e o th e r th re e e lem e n ts a re a s f o llo w s: “ (1 ) T h e tes tato r in d ica ted a n in ten t to 1 change hi s w i l l t o pr ovi de a de s cr i bed bene fi tforpl ai nt i ff[ ; ] . . . ( 3) T he def endantw as su cc essf u l i n p rev en ti n g the e x ec u ti o n o f a n ew w il l; an d (4) B u t fo r th e D ef en d an t’ s 3 w ill o n th e g ro u n d s o f

, am o n g o th e r c h a rg e s, u n d u e in f lu e n c e . V a rio u s P e n n sy lv a n ia stat e c o u rt s d en ied M icha el L u o n g o ’s ch all en g e to th e w il l, b u t L u o n g o an d h is si ster, P a u la A re n a , b ro u g h t th is s u it, c h a rg in g M c S h a n e w ith in ten tio n a llyin ter f e rin g w ith th e ir in h e ritan c e b yn o t f

o llo w in g D r. L u o n g o ’s w ish e s in d ra f tin g th e 1 9 9 5 w ill . I I . J ur i s di ct i on and St andar d of R evi ew T he D i s tr i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on overthi s di ver s i tyact i on p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 2 (a ), a n d w e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o v e r t h e g ra n t o f a m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. N at i onw i de Mut . I

ns . C o. v. R i l ey , 3 5 2 F . 3 d 8 0 4 , 8 0 6 n . 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). S u m m ary j udgm enti s appr opr i at e w her e “ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac t and . . . the movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . “W e r evi ew the fa ct s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the partyagai ns tw hom s um m aryj udgm entw as ent er ed. ” C oo l spri ngStone Su

pp l y, Inc. v. A m . Stat es Lif e Ins. C o. , 1 0 F . 3 d 1 4 4 , 1 4 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). I I I . D i s cus s i on A ppel l ant s fi l ed a c l ai m agai ns tM cShane a l l egi ng i nt ent i onal i nt er fer ence w i th an i nher i t ance , a t or tunderPenns y l vani a l aw . T he t or thas fourel ement s , of w hi ch onl ythe se c o n d is a t issu e : “ T h e d e f e n d a n t u se d f

ra u d , m isre p re se n tatio n o r u n d u e in f lu e n c e to 1conduct , the t es t at orw oul d have c hanged hi s w i l l . ” C ar denas v. Schober , 783 A . 2d 317,

3 2 6 (P a. S u p er. C t. 2 0 0 1 ). 4 pr eventexec ut i on of the i nt ended w i l l . ” C ar denas v. Schober , 783 A . 2d 317, 326 ( Pa. Super . C t . 2001) ( ci t i ng Mars hal lv. D e H aven , 5 8 A . 1 4 1 , 1 4 2 (P a . 1 9 0 4 )). A p p e llan ts d id n o t s u f

f ic ie n tly sh o w f

ra u d o r m is re p re s e n ta tio n , s o th e ym u s t s h o w u n d u e in f lu e n c e . T o do s o, A ppel l ant s m us tpr ove, bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence , thatthei rfatherhad a w e a k e n e d in te lle c t. See Burns v. Kabboul , 5 9 5 A .2 d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 6 2

– 6 3 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 1991) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatthei ratt empt t o pr ove w eake ned i nt el l ectw as pr ecl uded byan ea r l i erfi ndi ng bythe Super i orC our tof Penns y l vani a. T her e M i chae l L uongo m ade a cl ai m of undue i nfl uence agai ns tFl et chner . T hough L uongo as s ert ed thathi s father ’ s i nt el l ectw as w eake ned, and thatFl et chnerexer ci s ed u n d u e in f

lu e n c e o v e r h im , th e S u p e ri o r C o u rtf o u n d th a t L u o n g o f

a ile d in th is e f

f o rt . Es tat e of Luongo , 8 2 3 A .2 d 9 4 2 , 9 6 7 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 2 0 0 3 ). B eca us e M cShane r el i es on the s t at e courtj udgm entt o pr ecl ude the l i t i gat i on of u n d u e in f

lu e n c e b e f

o re u s, w e lo o k to P e n n sy lv a n ia a n d its law o n c o llate ra l es to p p e l to d e te rm in e th e e f

f e c t it w o u ld g iv e th e S u p e ri o r C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. B ailey v. N ess , 733 F. 2d 279, 281 ( 3d C i r . 1984) . T w o of the fourpr ongs of Penns y l vani a’ s col l at er al es t oppel doctr i ne ar e appl i cabl e her e: ( 1) “[a ] n i s s ue dec i ded i n a pr i oract i on i s i dent i cal to o n e p re se n ted in a late r a c tio n ,” a n d (2 ) “ [ t]h e p a rtya g a in st w h o m c o llate ra l es to p p e l isT he othertw o pr ongs r equi r e that“[t ] he pr i oract i on r es ul t ed i n a fi nal j udgm ent 2 o n th e m e rits[ , an d t]h e p a rtya g a in st w h o m c o llate ra l es to p p e l is a ss e rte d w a s a p a rtyto the pr i oract i on, ori s i n pr i vi tyw i th a partyt o the pr i oract i on . . . . ” R ue v. K-M art C or p. , 7 1 3 A . 2 d 8 2 , 8 4 (P a. 19 9 8 ). 5 a s s e rt e d h a d a f

u ll a n d f a iro p p o rt u n ity to litig a te th e is s u e in th e p ri o r a c tio n .” Ru e v . K- 2 Mar tC or

p. , 7 1 3 A . 2 d 8 2 , 8 4 (P a. 19 9 8 ). As f o rth e f i r s ti s s u e , th o u g h th e two c l a i ms o f u n d u e i n f

l u e n c e we r e a g a i n s ttwo di ffe r entpeopl e— Fl et chneri n the s t at e court s and M cShane i n thi s pr ocee di ng— the el ement s ar e the s ame forboth. A nd forboth, pr oof of D r . L uongo’ s w eake ned i nt el l ect i s r equi r ed fora pr i m a f aci e c a se . It i s h is w e a k e n e d in telle c t at th e tim e h e e x e c u ted h is w ill th a t is a t is s u e , B ur ns , 5 9 5 A .2 d a t 1 1 6 2 , a n d b o th c la im s in v o lv e th e s a m e w ill. T h u s, the issu e p rese n ted b ef o re u s is th e sa m e a s the o n e d ec ided b ythe S u p erior C o u rt of Penns y l vani a. S e c o n d , w e m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r A p p e llan ts h a d a “ f u ll an d f a ir o p p o rtu n ity ” to l i t i gat e the undue i nfl uence i s s ue i n the Super i orC our t . B ut“[f ] ew Penns y l vani a ca s es have a nal y zed the ext entt o w hi ch ther e w as ful l l i t i gat i on of m att er s thatar e di s pos ed of pr i ort o tr i al . ” Hu n t l e

y v . Ci t y o f J o h n s t o wn , N o. C I V . A . 03- 59J , 2004 W L 627157, at*8 ( W . D . Pa. M ar . 12, 2004) . Penns y l vani a has , how ever , adopt ed s ect i on 27 of the R e s ta te m e n t ( S e c o n d ) o f J u d g m e n ts . See Cl ark v. Troutm an , 502 A . 2d 137, 139 ( Pa. 1985) . C om m entd t o s ect i on 27 s t at es thatan i s s ue ca n be ac tual l yl i t i gat ed “ on a m ot i on to d ism iss fo r fa ilu re to sta te a c la im , a mot i on forj udgm enton the pl eadi ngs , a mot i on6

fors um m aryj udgm ent. . . , a mot i on fordi r ect ed ver di ct , orthei requi val ent s , as w el l as o n a ju d g m e n t e n te re d o n a v e rd ic t.” R e s ta te m e n t ( S e c o n d ) o f J u d g m e n ts § 2 7 c m t. d ( 1982) ( emphasi s added) . T he ac t i on i n the Super i orC our tw as “i n the natur e of a demurr er . ” Luongo , 823 A . 2d at968. A Penns y l vani a demur r eri s near l yi dent i cal t o the f e d e ra l 1 2 (b )( 6 ) m o tio n to d is m is s f o r f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im . See, e. g. , H unt l ey , 2004 W L 6 2 7 1 5 7 , at * 8 (“ [ C ]o m m e n t d o f § 2 7 c lea rlyp ro v id e s th a t a m a tter is a c tu a lly l i t i gat ed on mot i ons t o di s m i s s forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m , w hi ch i s i n the natur e of a d e m u rre r in sta te c o u rt.”); Luongo , 8 2 3 A . 2 d at 96 1 (“A d em u rrer i s a p reli m inary obj ect i on thatthe pl eadi ng fai l s t o s etforth a caus e of a ct i on upon w hi ch r el i ef c an be g ra n ted u n d e r a n yth e o ryo f law .” (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); T h o m a s v . H

o ltz , 707 A . 2d 569, 570 ( Pa. C om m w . C t . 1998) ( cal l i ng a 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on “[s ] i m i l art o a d e m u rr e r u n d e r P e n n s y lv a n ia ’s ru le s ” ). I n thi s cont ext , M i chae l L uongo m i s s ed no meani ngful oppor tuni tyi n the Super i or C our tt o l i t i gat e the i s s ue of hi s father ’ s w eake ned i nt el l ect . A s the Super i orC our tnot ed, “A ppel l antw as al l ow ed t o depos e [Fl et chner ] and pr es enta numberof w i tnes s es atthe cave ath e a rin g b e f

o re th e R e g iste r o f

W ill s. T h u s, [ h e ] h a s h a d a m p le o p p o rtu n ityto devel op and r efi ne hi s cl ai m s befor e and a ft erthe R egi s t erof W i l l s ’ di s m i s s al of the cave at . ” Luongo , 823 A . 2d at969. T he C our tal s o not ed thatL uongo “had a n oppor tuni tyt o amend hi s pet i t i on as of r i ght , aft erthe pr el i m i naryobj ect i ons w er e fi l ed[, buthe] fai l ed t o s ei ze thatoppor tuni ty. . . . ” Id . ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A l s o, “w hen7

the courtas ked [Luongo] fora pr offe rof addi t i onal evi dence , [he] offe r ed no other s ubs t ant i ve fa ct s t o s uppor thi s cl ai m s . ” I d. I V . C oncl us i on B e c a u se A p p e llan ts h a d a f u ll an d f a ir o p p o rtu n ityto lit ig a te th e iss u e o f th e ir father ’ s w eake ned i nt el l ecti n the Super i orC our tof Penns y l vani a and l os t , col l at er al e sto p p e l p re c lu d e s th e ir re lit ig a tio n o f th a t issu e in o u r C o u rt. W h e n c o llate ra l es to p p e l is s h o w n , a n yd e t e r m i n a t i o n w e w o u l d m a k e o n th e m e r i t s w o u l d b e w i th o u te f f e c t . We thus aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr ant i ng of s um m aryj udgm entforM cShane.