2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

11-3-2004 

# I n Re F l a t Gl a s s
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 03-2920

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n R e Fl a t Gl as s " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 148. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/148NOT PRECED ENTIAL UNITED S TATES COUR T OF APPEAL S FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 03-2920

IN RE FLAT GLASS ANT ITRUST LITIGATION

(MDL No. 1200) BRIAN S . NELSO N, d/b/a Jamestown Glass Service; ME L'S AUT O GLAS S, INC.; A. WAXMA N & CO., on behalf of itself, and all oth ers similarly situated; DESIGNER WINDOWS, INC., on beha lf of itself and all

others s imil arly

situat ed; MOSES MOOR E ALL GLASS ASPECTS, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; AAA GLAS S, INC., on behalf of itself and all oth ers similarly situated, d/b/a T he Glass Docto r; THE LU RIE COM PANIES , INC.; VSTB E NTERP RISES, IN C., d/b/a Perf ecto Auto G lass & Upholstery and its succes sors; PORT CI

TY GLASS & MIRROR, INC. , on its own be half and on beha

lf of all othe rs sim ilarl y s ituate d; JOHN HEALY, JR. ; COUNTY AUTO GLASS, INC., on behalf of themselves and all otherssimilarly situat ed; GERARD J. CLABBERS, on behalf of him sel f and a

ll ot hers sim ila rly sit uate d; KIR SCHNER COR PORATIO N, INC., t/ a Berwy n Glass Com

pany , on behalf of itself a nd all othe

rs sim ilarl y s ituate d; HARTU NG AGA LITE GL ASS CO ., d/b/a Hartun g Glass Indu stries; ALL STAR GLASS, INC., on be half of its elf and all otherssimilarly situat ed; SUPERIOR WINDSHIELD I NSTALLATION, INC., on its own beha lf and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JOVI, INC., o n behalf o f itself and all o thers similarly situat ed, t/a Easton Are a Glass ; ENGINEERED GLASS WALLS, I NC., on behalf of itself and all ot

hers simila

rly situat ed; BAILES GLASS CO.; INTERSTATE GLASS DISTRIB UTORS , INC., on b ehalf of itself and all others similarly situated; ORLAN DO AUT O TOP, IN C.; MAYF LOWER S ALES C O., INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; CAR DINAL IG ; REED'S BODY S HOP, INC .; BELET Z BROT HERS G LASS C OMPAN Y, INC.; CO MPLAS T, INC.; WESTERN STATES GLASS, on behalf of itself and all ot hers simila

rly situat ed; GRIMES AUTO GLASS, INC.; D&S GLAS S SERVIC ES, IN C.; GE ORGE BROW N & SON GL ASS WOR KS, INC.; T HERMA L CHEK , INC.; MOB ILE GLA SS, INC., individually

and as a r

epresentative

of a clas s; JELD-W

EN, INC., a

n Oregon corporation ; JELD-WEN CANAD A LIMITE D, a Canadian corporation ; JELD-WEN ARIZON A, INC., an A rizona corp oration; AV ANTI IND USTRIE S, INC.,2

an Arizona

corporat ion; LAKEWOOD CITY GLASS, INC.; CAROLINA MI RROR; ALLSTATE I

NSURANCE C OMPANY; ALLSTATE I NDEMNIT Y COMPANY

v. PILKINGTON PLC; PILKI NGTON LIBBEY-OWENS-FORD CO. , INC.; AFG INDUSTRIES, INC. ; GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES CORPORATI ON; PPG INDUST RIES, INC .; LIBBEY -OWENS-F ORD CO ., INC.; ASA HI GLAS S CO., LT D.; FORD MOTOR CO.; PILKINGTON HOLDI NGS; ASAHI GLASS AMERICA, I NC. UNITED STATE S OF AM ERICA (In tervenor in D .C.)

(D.C. No. 97- mc-00550)

Class Plaintiff s and Grimes Auto Glass, Appellants

Be for e: N YG AA RD , M CK EE and CH ER TO FF , Circuit Judges (Fil ed: November 3, 2004)

OPINI ON SUR DENI

AL OF PANEL

REHEARING
CHERTOFF, Circuit

Judge

. This case is before the Court on the petiti on of the Plaintiff-Appellants for panel rehear ing of its Se

ptembe r 29, 2004 Opinion “ insofar a s it found tha t Plaint iffs did not appeal the District

Court’s Memorandum Order dated May 29, 2003 (the “Order”) excluding the grand jury test imony of Ronald W. Skeddle.” (Pet. at 1.) This Court denies r ehearing for the two r

easons explained he

rein.1 The Plaint iff-Appell ants al so made

passing r eferenc e to the gr

and jury testimony in their “Prelim

inary Statement” where

they s tated that “Plainti ffs believe this ruling was er ro r” in re fe re nc e t o t he Di st ri ct Co ur t’ s d ec is io n t o e xc lu de th e g ra nd ju ry t es ti mo ny, (Appella nt Br. at 3, n.1), a nd in their

“State ment of Fa

cts” whe re they state d that the “grand jury

testimony

[was] err oneously stricken from t

he summ ary judgment r

ecord by the District Cou rt in response to motions in limine filed by PPG,” ( id. at 18). 3 First, Federal Rule of Appellate Proce dure 28(a)(5) and Third Circuit Local Appellat e Rule 28.1( a) provide

that an i ssue will only

be addres sed by

the Court i f the appellant sets fo rth the issue in a “statemen t of issues presen ted for rev iew” and pr esents argument in sup port of th e issue in its open ing brief. Kost v. Kozakiewicz , 1 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 1993 ) (citing Fed. R . App. P. 2 8(a)(5); Lo cal App. R. 2 8.1(a)); see also 16A Fed. Prac . & Proc. 3d § 3974.1 (“to a ssure c onsidera tion of an is sue by

the court the appella nt must both rais e it in t

his ‘Sta teme nt of the Is sues’ a

nd pursue it

in the ‘Argument’ po rtion of th e brief”). “It is well settled that if an app ellant fails to comply with thes e requir

ement s on a part

icular issue, the appellant norm ally has abandone d and waived that issue on appeal and it need not be addressed by the court of appeals.” Kost , 1 F.3d at 1 82 (citing cases)

. The Plaintif f-Appellan ts seek rehearing on an issue th at they did not raise in their “Statement of Iss ues on Appeal,” ( see Appellant B r. at 5-6.), and that they referred to once in the “A rgument” portio n of the b rief in a foo tnote, ( see id. at 76 n.63). 1 In addition, their r

eferenc e to the Ske ddle grand jur y t estim ony in the footnote

did not purport to r

aise t he issue for conside

ration; instea

d it sta ted in a s ection r

elating to the2 Fed. R. Ev id. 807 p rovides, in p ertinent part:

A state ment not specifi cally

covered by

Rule 803 or 804 but ha

ving equivale nt circumsta

ntial gua rantee s of trust

worthines s, is not

excluded by the hearsay

rule, if the court determ

ines that (A) the sta

tement is offered as evidence of a mat erial fact; ( B) the st

atem ent is m ore probat

ive on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure thr ough reaso nable eff orts; and (C) th e general pu rposes of th ese rules a nd the inte

restsof justice

will bes t be ser

ved by admis sion of the statement into eviden ce. . . .

3 Fed. R. Ev id. 804(b )(3) provid es: The follo wing are no t excluded b y the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable a s a witness . . . A statement wh ich was at the time of its making so far co ntrary to the declarant's pecun iary or proprietary interest, 4 District Court’s suppress ion of notes written by Ronald Skeddle that “[t]he Distr ict Court compound ed its error by excludin g Skedd le’s and Bryant’s grand jury testimony. This type of evidence h as sufficient g uarantees of trustworthin ess to be admissible un der Rule 807. [citing cases ].” This “ casual [] menti on” of the gra nd jury testimony

“is ins ufficient to preserve the issue for revi ew on appeal.” Nagle v. Alspach , 8 F.3d 141, 143 (3d C ir. 1993) (cit ing Simmons v. City of Philad elphia , 947 F.2d 1042, 10 66 (3d Cir. 1991)). Second, ev en if the Plain tiff-App ellants had pro perly raised this issue in their brief, r ehearing is not war

ranted be cause t

he Distr ict Court properly excluded t

he grand jury tes timony . The Plaintiff-Appellants asser t that this Court should find that Skeddle’s grand ju ry testimony

has “suffic ient guarantee s of trustwo rthiness” for a dmissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 807, the residual exception to the hearsay rule, 2 for the

same rea sons that the Court remanded the is sue of whether Skeddle’s handwritten notes had “trustworthiness and relia bility ” as statem

ents against intere st under Rule 804(b)(3). 3or so far ten ded to sub ject the declaran t to civil or criminal liability, or to

render inva lid a claim by the declarant against an other, that a reaso nable person in th e declarant's positio n would not have made th e statement unless believing it to be true. A statement ten ding to ex pose the decla rant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate th e accused is no t admissible unless c orroborat

ing circumsta

nces cl early

indicat e the tr ustworthiness of the statement. 5 The Skeddle gr

and jury testimony , though, isfundament ally different from the Skeddle notes for purposes of admissibility because there is no question that Skeddle’s testimony to the grand ju ry was not contemporan eous. In con sidering the S keddle no tes, for which a question o f timing remains, this Co urt explained that: We agre e . . . t

hat a finding that Skeddl e’s note s were not contem poraneous would support a

conclusi on that the

state mentsare not r

eliabl e or corrobora ted by the cir cumst ances. Skeddle left LOF under a c loud of mutual disaffec tion. Conse quently , docume nting LOF wrongdoing dur ing a time when LOF was alleging th at Skeddle h imself had engag ed in wrongd oing wo uld tend to impugn Sk eddle’s motives and therefore also the reliabilit

y of the sta

tements. But it

is not clear that t

he District Court excluded Ske ddle’s not

es beca use it found t

hat they were not contem poraneous. Moreover, it is not clear that the record s upports such a conclusion; on their face, ma ny of the notes give no indication that t hey were ex po st fabrications. Slip Op. at

32-33. For the

same reasons , the Dis trict

Court was well within its dis creti on in concluding that Skeddle’s after-the-fact t estimony does not have circumstanti al guarante es of trus tworthine ss for purpos es of Rule 807.6 UNITED S TATES COUR T OF APPEAL S FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 03-2920

IN RE FLAT GLASS ANT ITRUST LITIGATION

(MDL No. 1200)

BRIAN S . NELSO N, d/b/a Jamestown Glass Service; ME L'S AUT O GLAS S, INC.; A. WAXMA N & CO., on behalf of itself, and all oth ers similarly situated; DESIGNER WINDOWS, INC., on beha lf of itself and all

others s imil arly

situat ed; MOSES MOOR E ALL GLASS ASPECTS, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; AAA GLAS S, INC., on behalf of itself and all oth ers similarly situated, d/b/a T he Glass Docto r; THE LU RIE COM PANIES , INC.; VSTB E NTERP RISES, IN C., d/b/a Perf ecto Auto G lass & Upholstery and its succes sors; PORT CI

TY GLASS & MIRROR, INC. , on its own be half and on beha

lf of all othe rs sim ilarl y s ituate d; JOHN HEALY, JR. ; COUNTY AUTO GLASS, INC., on behalf of themselves and all otherssimilarly situat ed; GERARD J. CLABBERS, on behalf of him sel f and a

ll ot hers sim ila rly sit uate d; KIR SCHNER COR PORATIO N, INC., t/ a Berwy n Glass Com

pany , on behalf of itself a nd all othe

rs sim ilarl y s ituate d; HARTU NG AGA LITE GL ASS CO ., d/b/a Hartun g Glass Indu stries; ALL STAR GLASS, INC., on be half of its elf and all otherssimilarly situat ed; SUPERIOR WINDSHIELD I NSTALLATION, INC., on its own beha lf and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JOVI, INC., o n behalf o f itself and all o thers similarly situat ed, t/a Easton Are a Glass ; ENGINEERED GLASS WALLS, I NC., on behalf of itself and all ot

hers simila

rly situat ed; BAILES GLASS CO.; INTERSTATE GLASS DISTRIB UTORS , INC., on b ehalf of itself and all others similarly situated; ORLAN DO AUT O TOP, IN C.; MAYF LOWER S ALES C O., INC., on behalf of itself7

and all others similarly situated; CAR DINAL IG ; REED'S BODY S HOP, INC .; BELET Z BROT HERS G LASS C OMPAN Y, INC.; CO MPLAS T, INC.; WESTERN STATES GLASS, on behalf of itself and all ot hers simila

rly situat ed; GRIMES AUTO GLASS, INC.; D&S GLAS S SERVIC ES, IN C.; GE ORGE BROW N & SON GL ASS WOR KS, INC.; T HERMA L CHEK , INC.; MOB ILE GLA SS, INC., individually

and as a r

epresentative

of a clas s; JELD-W

EN, INC., a

n Oregon corporation ; JELD-WEN CANAD A LIMITE D, a Canadian corporation ; JELD-WEN ARIZON A, INC., an A rizona corp oration; AV ANTI IND USTRIE S, INC.,

an Arizona

corporat ion; LAKEWOOD CITY GLASS, INC.; CAROLINA MI RROR; ALLSTATE I

NSURANCE C OMPANY; ALLSTATE I NDEMNIT Y COMPANY

v. PILKINGTON PLC; PILKI NGTON LIBBEY-OWENS-FORD CO. , INC.; AFG INDUSTRIES, INC. ; GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES CORPORATI ON; PPG INDUST RIES, INC .; LIBBEY -OWENS-F ORD CO ., INC.; ASA HI GLAS S CO., LT D.; FORD MOTOR CO.; PILKINGTON HOLDI NGS; ASAHI GLASS AMERICA, I NC. UNITED STATE S OF AM ERICA (In tervenor in D .C.)

(D.C. No. 97- mc-00550)

Class Plaintiff s and Grimes Auto Glass, Appellants

Be for e: N YG AA RD , M CK EE and CH ER TO FF , Circuit Judges

SUR PETI TION FOR

PANEL REHEARING
The petition for pane l rehearing fi led by Plaintiffs- Appellant s in the above-ent itl ed case h aving been subm itted to the judg es w ho p articipate d in the decisio n of this C ourt,8

and no judge who concurr ed in the decisi on having asked f or rehearing, t

he peti tion for reheari ng by the panel, is deni ed. BY THE COURT,

/s/ Michael Chertof

f
Circuit Judge Dated: November

3, 2004 ghb/cc: Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. (Robert N. Kaplan, Es q. Richard J . Kilshe imer , Esq. David J. Ar

mstr ong, Esq. Paul M. Dody

k, Esq. J. Micha

el Murra y, Esq. Elliot Silverman, Esq. Michael

S. Somm er, Esq.