2007 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 Thir d C ir c uit 2-26-2007 

# Ja ckson v . Rohm H a a s C o P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-1540

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e 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 Thir d C ir c 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 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 mor e 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
" J a ck s on v . Ro hm H a as C o " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1572. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1572H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge forthe D i s t r i ctof * N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 1

NO T PRECEDEN TI 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. 06- 1540 

### MA RK JAC KS ON , Appe l l ant

v. ROHM & HAAS COMPANY; MORGAN, LEW I S & BOCKI US LLP; C O N RA D O 'BR IENG E L L M AN& R O HN , P .C .; R O B E R T V O G E L , E squ ire;

C E L IAJO S E P H , E squ ire; R O Y C E WA RRIC K , E squ ire; MICH AE L M CL AU GH LIN, Esqu ire; WAYN E D AV IS; DAV ID GA RT EN BE RG ; ELL EN FR IEDE L, Esqu ire; JANE GREENE TZ ; JAM ES D. PA GL IARO , Esquire ; PA UL J. GREC O, Esqu ire; P. DA FF OD IL TY MINS KI, Esquire ; ARET HADE LIGH T D AV IS, Esquire ; NAN CY GE LL MAN, Esqu ire; WI LL IAM O ' BR IEN, Esqu ire; KE LL Y G . HUL LE R, Esqu ire; JUNE MCCRORY, J OHN DOE, Nos . 1- 25
APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

D . C
. C i vi l N o. 03- cv- 05299 D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February2, 2007 B e f o re : B A R R Y , R O T H , C i r cui tJudges , a nd I RE N A S, Seni orD is tr i ct Judge. *T h e p arti es d ispu te w h ethe r M cC roryo r a c o -w o rke r rep o rt ed the in cide n t t o R & H ’s 1 H u m a n R e s o u rc e s R e p re s e n ta tiv e . 2 ( Fi l ed February26, 2007)
OP I NI ON
IR E N A S , Seni orU

ni t ed Stat es D is tr i ct

Judge. A p p e llan t M a rk Ja c k so n a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n d ism iss in g h is A m ended Com pl ai ntpur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m under th e R a c k e te e r I n f

lu e n c e d a n d C o rr u p t O rg a n iz a tio n s A c t ( “ R IC O ” ), 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 1 , et
s eq . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. I. R ohm and H aas ( R & H ) empl oy ed J acks on i n 1992 as a C
. P. A
. i n i t s Fi nanci al R epor t i ng and A nal y s i s D i vi s i on. O n t he ni ghtof J une 26, 1998, J acks on and a c ow or ker , J une M cC r or y , s pentan eve ni ng t ogetheri n w hi ch theyhad a s exual encount er th a t M c C ro rya lleg e d w a s n o t co n se n su a l. R & H c o n d u c ted a n in v e stig a tio n o f th e e v e n ts
w hen i tw as i nform ed of the al l egat i on. 1 In 199 9, Jackson fi l ed tw o acti on s i n the Pen nsy l van i a C ou rtof C om m on P l eas, cl ai m i ng i nvas i on of pr i vacy , i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s t r es s , and def amat i on
ar i s i ng outof the i nves t i gat i on. J udge C ol i ns cons ol i dat ed the tw o act i ons and hel d a tr i al
. T he j ur yr etur ned a ve r di cti n favorof J acks on for$150, 000, fi ndi ng thatR & H w as l i abl e fori nvadi ng J acks on’ s pr i vacy . T he j uryal s o found thatM cC r orydefa m edP e n n s y lv a n ia ’s W C A b a rs s u its a g a in s t e m p lo y e rs f o r w o rk -r e la te d in

ju ri e s . K l i ne v. 2 A r d e n H. V

e r n e rC o ., 503 Pa. 251 ( 1983)
. J udge C ol i ns found s uch i nj ur i es t o i ncl ude th o s e s u s ta in e d b yJ a c k s o n d u e to th e R & H in v e s tig a tio n . O n Sept ember19, 2005, J acks on fi l ed a s econd Com pl ai nti n t he East ern D i s t r i ctof 3 Penns y l vani a ( “J acks on I I ”) , w hi ch w as al s o as s i gned t o J udge Pol l ak. I n i t , he c o m p lain e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts in th is liti g a tio n (“ Ja c k so n I” ), th e ir law y e rs, a n d L ib e rty L i fe, R & H ’ s di s abi l i t yi ns ur ance admi ni s t r at or , engage d i n w r ongdoi ng dur i ng the lit ig a tio n o f

Ja c k so n I in th e D istric t C o u rt. Ja c k so n c o n ten d e d th a t all d e f e n d a n ts in Ja c k so n II, e x c e p t L ib e rtyL if e , ac ted f ra u d u len tlyb yp re se n tin g th e sa m e d o c u m e n ts pr oduced i n s t at e courtt hathe cl ai m ed w er e doct or ed. A ddi t i onal l y , he al l eged that L ibertyL ife c o n sp ir ed w ith R & H to d ep ri v e h im o f d isab il ityb en ef it s tha t w ere p u rp o r t e d l yo we d t o h i m. Ba s e d u p o n th e s e a l l e g a t i o n s , J a c k s o n c o mp l a i n e d o f RI CO v io latio n s, a s w e ll as v io latio n s o f sta te la w . B e c a u se Ju d g e P o llak f o u n d th a t h is deci s i on i n J acks on I m ade i tcl earthatJ acks on l acke d s t andi ng t o br i ng a R I C O cl ai m , he s anct i oned J ohns on’ s at t or neypur s uantt o R ul e 11 forbr i ngi ng unw arr ant ed and f r i vol ous R I C O cl ai m s . T he C our tal s o i m pos ed s anct i ons forthe cons pi r acyal l egat i ons as bei ng me r i t l e s s a n d f

r i v o l o u s . J a c k s o n t h e n twi c e a me n d e d h i s Co mp l a i n tt o a l l e g e c l a i ms arisi n g o u t of

co n d u ct co n n ec ted to h is r ec eipt o f d isab il ityb en ef it s. T h ese claim s are c u rr e n tly p e n d in g b e f

o re J u d g e P o lla k
. 3 J acks on, butdi d notaw ar d damages on t hatcl ai m . R & H m oved forj udgm entnot
w i ths t andi ng t he ver di ct( “JN O V ”) , w hi ch the C our tgr ant ed bec aus e i tfound that Jackson ’s cl ai m of invasi on of p ri vacyw as barr ed b ythe P enn sy l van i a W orkers ’ C o m p e n s a tio n A c t ( “ W C A ” ), 7 7 P a .C .S .A . § 1 , et s eq. J acks on appea l ed t o t he Super i or 2 C our t , w hi ch deni ed hi s appea l and s ubs equentpet i t i on fora r ehea r i ng en banc
. T he P e n n s y lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ie d h is P e titio n f o r A llo w a n c e to A p p e a l. O n Sept ember19, 2003, J acks on fi l ed an a ct i on i n t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. I n hi s A m ended Com pl ai nt , J acks on averr ed thatdefe ndant s m ade 3 f ra u d u le n t r e p re s e n ta tio n s to th e s ta te c o u rt , in v io la tio n o f R IC O a n d s e v e ra l s ta te la w s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed J acks on’ s A m ended Com pl ai nti n i t s ent i r ety , hol di ng that4

J acks on l acke d R I C O s t andi ng, t he onl yi ndepende ntbas i s of fe der al j ur i s di ct i on, and ref u sed to ex erc ise su p p lem en tal juri sd ict ion o v er the rem ainin g stat e law claim s. It
s ubs equent l ydeni ed J acks on’ s r econs i der at i on m ot i on. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng the A m en d ed C o m p lai n t pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S
. C
. § 1 2 9 1
. W e re v iew the d ism issal of Jac k so n ’s A m en d ed C o m p lai n t pu rsua n t t o F ed
. R . C iv. P. 12 (b)(6 ) d e n o v o . D o b r e k v . P h e la n , 419 F .3 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 )(“ th e C o u rt sh o u ld a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o n ly if it ap p e a rs th a t th e P lain tiff c o u ld p ro v e n o se t o f

f a c ts th a t w o u ld e n tit le h im to re lief.”); Mar i ana v. F is her , 3 3 8 F .3 d 1 8 9 , 1 9 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), c e r t d e n ie d , 5 4 0 U .S . 1 1 7 9 (2 0 0 4 ). T he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s den i al of Jack son’s m oti on for r econ si derat i on i s r eview ed fo r abuse of di s cr et i on w hen bas ed upon an i s s ue of f act , and i s r evi ew ed forcl earerr orw hen p r e d i c a t e d o n a n i s s u e o f l a w. See M

ax’s Seaf ood C af é by Lou-A nn, I

nc. v. Q ui nt er os , 1 7 6 F .3 d 6 6 9 , 6 7 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); N or th R i verI

ns . C o. v. C

IG N A R ei ns ur ance Co. , 52 F .3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 2 0 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). III . T he fi r s ti s s ue i s w hetherJ acks on s t at ed a c l ai m underR I C O s uch thatthe D i s tr i ct C our thad an i ndepende ntbas i s of j ur i s di ct i on overJ acks on’ s cl ai m s . A pl ai nt i ff br i ngi ng
a c i v i l R I C O c l a i m m u s ts h o w t h a t : ( 1 ) h e s u f f e r e d a n i n

j u r y t o h i s b u s i n e s s o rp r o p e r ty,
a n d (2 ) t h e a lle g e d in

ju ry w a s p ro x im a te ly ca u s e d b yd e f e n d a n t’ s ra c k e te e ri n g a c tiv ity.I n s uppor tof thes e cont ent i ons , J acks on m akes as s ert i ons aboutdefe ndant s ’ conduct 4 thatar e i rr el evantand w er e al r eadycons i der ed and r ej ect ed i n t he s t at e courtpr ocee di ngs bel ow , as w el l as byt he D i s t r i ctC our ti n J acks on I and J acks on I I . B eca us e theyhave no b e a ri n g o n th e le g a l q u e s tio n s b e f o re u s , w e d e c lin e to a d d re s s th e m . Jackson al so con t end s that R IC O l i abil i t ycan b e prem i sed up on defe nd ants ’ 5 obs truct i on of j us t i ce s t emm i ng fr om the al l eged f r aud upon the s t at e court s and s ubm i s s i on of the s t at e courtr ecor d as exhi bi t s t o defe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s i n t he D i s tr i ctC our t . T hi s cl ai m w as notpl ed i n J acks on’ s A m ended Com pl ai nt , butw as n ev erthe less arg u ed b ef o re the D istri ct C o u rt . E v en w ere itp led, ho w ev er, Jack so n ’s

5 Mai o v. A etna I

nc. , 2 2 1 F .3 d 4 7 2 , 4 8 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). Ja c k so n ’s R IC O c laim is b a se d u p o n h is a ss e rtio n th a t d e f e n d a n ts c o n sp ire d to
comm i tfr aud on the s t at e court , and then aga i n on the D i s t r i ctC ourt , byus i ng al t er ed document s t o s uppor tt hei rpos i t i on i n t he under l y i ng i nvas i on of pr i vacyand def amat i on
ac ti o n . H e a rgu es th at su ch co n d u ct ca u sed the s tat e c o u rtto g ran t def en d an t R & H ’s 4
m ot i on forJN O V , and bec aus e the j udgm entw as fr audul ent l yobt ai ned, i ti s voi d. T he s t at e tr i al court , how ever , expr es s l ys t at ed i n gr ant i ng defe ndant ’ s m ot i on for JN O V t hati t s deci s i on w as pr emi s ed upon the fa ctthatJ acks on’ s cl ai m s w er e barr ed by the Penns y l vani a W C A and noton anydocument s s ubm i t t ed oract i ons t aken by defe ndant s i n t he cour s e of the s t at e courtl i t i gat i on. T he Super i orC our taff i r m ed the
o rd e r g ra n tin g JN O V . B eca us e the s t at e court s ’ deci s i ons w er e notbas ed upon the evi dence pr es ent ed at tr i al , butr atherupon t he W C A ’ s cover age f oranyharm caus ed J acks on bythe i nves t i gat i on, w e hol d t hatJ acks on cannots how thathi s i nj uryw as pr oxi m at el ycaus ed byanyal l eged racket eeri ng act i vit i es. 5c laim f

a ils b e c a u se h e c a n n o t sh o w p ro x im a te c a u sa tio n , an d c a n n o t circ u m v e n t th is re q u ir e m e n t b ys im p ly ra is in g a n a d d itio n a l th e o ry o f lia b ility. T he D i s t r i ctC our tperm i t t ed J acks on t o fi l e tw o amendm ent s t o hi s m ot i on for 6 r econs i der at i on. I t s rul i ng w as bas ed upon the ar gum ent s s etfor t h i n t he s econd a m ended m o tio n . 6 I V. A m ot i on forr econs i der at i on s houl d be made onl yt o “corr ectm ani fes terr or s of l aw orfac tort o pr es entnew l ydi s cover ed evi dence
. ” H ars co C or

p. v. Zl otni cki , 779 F .2 d 9 0 6 , 9 0 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). I n hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, J acks on ar gued thatther e ar e tw o gr ounds for 6
r econs i der i ng t he or derdi s m i s s i ng the ca s e: ( 1) the D i s t r i ctC our tm i s under s t ood t he
c h a r a c t e ro f

t h e s t a t e c o u r tp r o c e e d i n g s a n d th e s t a t e c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o g r a n tth e JNOV,
as w ell as th e a ff

irm ati o n o f th at de cisi o n b ythe S u p erior C o u rt ; and (2) the D istri ct C o u rt
e rr e d in f a ilin g to re ta in ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e s ta te la w c la im s . T h e D istric t C o u rt, i n its o p in io n d ism iss in g Ja c k so n ’s A m e n d e d C o m p lain t, cl ear l yar t i cul at ed the gr ounds fort he s t at e courtdeci s i ons bel ow , quot i ng di r ect l yfr om th o se d e c isio n s in e x p lain in g th e m . (JA 1 7 ). Ju d g e P o llak ru led u p o n th e m o tio n to
rec o n side r fro m the b en ch an d fo u n d that the C o u rtd id n o t m isap p reh en d the s tat e c o u rt pr ocee di ngs ordet erm i nat i ons . ( J A 658- 60)
. B eca us e w e agr ee thatther e w er e no
m ani fes terr or s of l aw orfac t , and no new evi dence w as pr es ent ed, w e hol d t hatthe D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g J a c k s o n ’s m o tio n f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n . J acks on’ s s econd a r gum ent , t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have r et ai ned7

juri sd ict ion o v er the su p p lem en tal stat e law claim s, is al so u n av ail ing
. A D istri ct C o u rt h a s t h e d i s c r e t i o n wh e t h e rt o e x e r c i s e s u p p l e me n t a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rs t a t e l a w c l a i ms
w h e n n o f

e d e ra l cla im s re m a in in th e c a se . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 7 (c )(3 ) (“ T h e d istric t co u rts
m aydecl i ne t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overa cl ai m . . . i f .
. . the di s t r i ctcour thas d is m is s e d a ll c la im s o v e r w h ic h it h a s o ri g in a l ju ri s d ic tio n ). See al s o Q ueen Ci t

y Piz z a v. D o m in o ’s P izz a , 124 F. 3d 430, 333 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( t he dec i s i on t o decl i ne s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overa pl ai nt i ff’ s r emai ni ng s t at e l aw cl ai m s “i s comm i t t ed t o t he s ound d isc re tio n o f

th e d istric t co u rt.”). It w a s n o t cle a rlye rro n e o u s f o r th e D istric t C o u rt to ref u se to ex erc ise su p p lem en tal juri sd ict ion o v er the stat e law claim s, p arti cu larl yw h ere th e so le f e d e ra l cla im is f

o u n d to b e w h o llylac k in g in m e rit.

V. Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h above, the j udgm ent s of the East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng t he A m ended Com pl ai ntand deny i ng the mot i on for
re c o n s id e ra tio n w ill b e a f f ir m e d
.