NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-3574

___________

JERROLD B. KNOEPFLER; 

*THE ESTATE OF INTERNATIONAL MEAT TRADER’S INC.,**

 Appellants

v.

GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

OF AMERICA; BERKSHIRE LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY OF AMERICA

 *(Pursuant to Rule 12(a) Fed. R. App. P.)

** Dismissed Pursuant to Clerk's Order Dated 1/24/2011 

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. 01-cv-05186)

District Judge: Honorable William H. Walls

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 6, 2012

Before: JORDAN, HARDIMAN and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 10, 2012 )

___________

OPINION

___________
2

PER CURIAM

Jerrold Knoepfler, proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the United States 

District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing his complaint pursuant to a 

Settlement Agreement executed by the parties. For the reasons that follow, we will 

dismiss the appeal.

On October 10, 2001, Knoepfler filed an action in state court in New Jersey 

against Guardian Life Insurance Company of America and Berkshire Life Insurance 

Company of America (collectively “Guardian”), seeking recovery of disability benefits 

under two insurance policies.

1

 Guardian removed the action to the District Court on the 

basis of diversity of citizenship. On March 25, 2004, Guardian moved for summary 

judgment, arguing that the action was barred by the three-year period of limitations set 

forth in the insurance policies. The District Court determined that Knoepfler’s claims 

were time-barred and granted Guardian’s summary judgment motion. Knoepfler 

appealed. Upon review, we determined that the District Court erred in granting summary 

judgment in favor of Guardian and reversed and remanded the case for further 

proceedings. See Knoepfler v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.

A jury trial commenced on July 13, 2010. On the morning of what was to be the 

fifth day of trial, the parties, both represented by counsel, reached and executed a 

, 438 F.3d 287 (3d Cir. 

2006).

 1 Guardian Life Insurance Company of America is the parent company of Berkshire Life 

Insurance Company.
3

Settlement Agreement. After the parties signed the Settlement Agreement, the District 

Court held a hearing on the record where Knoepfler testified as to his mental fitness and 

willingness to enter into the Settlement Agreement, as well as to his understanding and 

acceptance of its terms. The District Court then dismissed the jury. On July 21, 2010, 

Guardian sent a settlement check to Knoepfler’s attorney. On July 29, 2010, the District 

Court entered the “Stipulation and Order of Dismissal,” previously signed by counsel to 

both parties, dismissing the matter with prejudice. Knoepfler filed a timely notice of 

appeal seeking review of the District Court’s July 29, 2010 order. Guardian argues, inter 

alia, that Knoepfler lacks standing to bring this appeal.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “[A]s a general rule, a party 

cannot appeal a consent judgment.” Verzilli v. Flexon, Inc., 295 F.3d 421, 424 (3d Cir. 

2002). However, exceptions to this general rule include a party’s failure to assent to the 

agreement, the underlying court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and an express 

reservation of the right to appeal in the stipulation. In re Sharon Steel Corp., 918 F.2d 

434, 437 n.3 (3d Cir. 1990); Verzilli

In his appellate brief, Knoepfler does not argue that the District Court lacked 

subject matter jurisdiction over the case, or that the parties reserved the right to appeal in 

the Settlement Agreement. Rather, he asserts that he agreed to settle the matter because 

he “had no other option but to settle as the ‘deck of cards’ had been stacked against him 

on all sides.” (

, 295 F.3d at 424.

See Appellant’s Br. at 1.) Knoepfler further claims that he has never been
4

presented with an original copy of the settlement agreement, but that the “terms [are] not 

consistent with [his] memory or with [his] wife[’s]” (Id.

To the extent that Knoepfler is attempting to argue that he did not assent to the 

Settlement Agreement, the claim is belied by the record. On the day that the parties 

signed the Settlement Agreement, the District Court, as well as Knoepfler’s attorney, 

questioned him at length on the record about his acceptance of its terms. (Appellee’s

App. at 18-29.) Knoepfler confirmed that he had reviewed the Settlement Agreement, 

that his initials appeared on each page of the document, and that his signature was his 

own. (

at 9.)

Id. at 21.) He also acknowledged that he was aware that the Settlement 

Agreement was the final disposition of the case and that it barred him from taking further 

action in any court. (Id. at 22; 24.) Knoepfler further testified that he was competent to 

enter into the Settlement Agreement. (Id. at 23.) His wife also testified that Knoepfler 

was competent to enter into the Settlement Agreement and that he did so voluntarily. (Id.

Knoepfler does not point to any evidence which might suggest that he did not 

assent to the Settlement Agreement. He does not dispute that he accepted and deposited 

the settlement check. His apparent dissatisfaction with the way in which the case 

progressed before the parties executed the Settlement Agreement does not undermine the 

fact that he agreed to it and testified on the record that he was competent to do so.

at 25-26.)

Accordingly, because no exception to the general rule barring a party from 

appealing a consent judgment exists here, Knoepfler cannot appeal the July 29, 2010 
5

order dismissing the case by stipulation of the parties. The appeal is therefore dismissed. 

We grant Guardian’s motions to seal various documents filed in this Court.