2009 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 2-11-2009 

# P atric i a S mith v

. Andre a C l ark 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 . 08-3238

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_2009

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 2009 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 " P atr ic i a S mith v

. Andr e a C l ark " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1876. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1876NOT 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. 08- 3238

___________ P AT RI CI A S M I T H, E / O Wi l l i e F . S mi t h ; P AT RI CI A S M I T H;

M AR Y S CO T T ; CH RI S T I NE S M I T H, A p p e llan ts v. THO M AS J EFF ERSON UN I VER SI TY H OSPI TAL; J E F F E R S O N M E D IC A L C O L L E G E ; V IN C E N T A R M E N T I, M .D .; A N D R E A C L A R K , R .N .; B E C K IE M IC H A E L , D .O .; BRE NDA HOFF M AN, M D. , I n t e r me d i a t e Di a l y s i s Un i t ; M ARCY B. TANKER; AT T OR NE Y R OB E RT A. J UB E L I RE R; AT T OR NE Y VAL P L E E T WI L S ON;

AT T OR NE Y F RE DR I C L . GOL DF E I N, (P u rsua n t t o F . R . A . P . 1 2 (a))

____________________________________ O n 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 . N o. 08- cv- 02478) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le N o rm a L . S h ap ir o

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February10, 2009 B efore: F ISH E R , JO R D A N and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: February11, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________2

P E R C UR I AM M aryScot t , C hr i s t i ne Sm i t h, and Patr i ci a Sm i t h ( t ogether , t he “Smi t hs ”) appea l fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng t hei rcompl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ectm at t er j u r i s d i c t i o n . F o rt h e f

o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m. T hi s m at t erar i s es fr om a medi cal m al pr act i ce a ct i on curr ent l ypendi ng i n t he Phi l adel phi a C ount yC our tof C om m on Pl eas . I n February2005, t he Sm i t hs i ni t i at ed that act i on agai ns tT hom as J eff er s on U ni ver s i t yH os pi t al , J eff er s on M edi cal C ol l ege, and s e v e ra l m e d ic a l p ro f

e s s io n a ls in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e d e a th o f th e irf a th e r, W illie F . S m ith . ( J an. T erm , 2005, N o. 4090. ) T he Sm i t hs and thei rat t or ney , V al Pl eetW i l s on, s u b s e q u e n tly a g re e d to re s o lv e th e d is p u te b yp a rt ic ip a tin g in a b in d in g a rb itr a tio n . Fol l ow i ng t he arbi t r at i on on A pr i l 12, 2007, t he part i es s et t l ed the ca s e for$105, 000. 00. I tappea r s , how ever , t hatt he Sm i t hs t hen r efus ed t o exec ut e a r el eas e t o fi nal i ze th e se ttl e m e n t. T h e S m ith s c laim e d th a t A tto rn e yW ilso n h a d f a iled to a d e q u a tely r epr es entt hei ri nt er es t s att he arbi t r at i on, and that , aft ert he arbi t r at i on, t heyhad l earned th a t th e d o c to r w h o p e rf o rm e d th e irf

a th e r’ s s u rg e ry w a s n o t b o a rd -c e rt if ie d a s a s u rg e o n . D es pi t e the Sm i t hs ’ compl ai nt s , t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas enfor ced the agr eementand i nst ruct ed the Sm i t hs t o co m plyw i t h it s t erm s. A ppar ent l ydi s s at i s fi ed w i t h t he s t at e court ’ s rul i ng, t he Sm i t hs t hen fi l ed the pr es entpr o s e compl ai nti n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof P en n sy lvan ia. T h e c o m p lai n t nam ed as d ef en d an ts th e sa m e p arti es f rom the s tat e c o u rtW e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, and our 1 re v ie w o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d is m is s a l f o r l a c k o f

s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n is p le n a ry. G aryv. B r addock Cem et ery , 517 F. 3d 195, 200 n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ; B al l ent i ne v. U ni t ed S tat es, 48 6 F . 3 d 8 0 6 , 8 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 3 a c tio n a s w e ll as th e a tto rn e y s w h o h a d p a rticip a ted in th e a rb itratio n . In th e c o m p lain t, t he Sm i t hs agai n al l eged thatt he doct orw ho per form ed thei rfather ’ s s ur geryw as not b o a rd -c e rtifie d a s a su rg e o n . T h e S m ith s f u rth e r a lleg e d th a t o n e o f th e m e d ica l ex p e rts att he arbi t r at i on l acke d s uffi ci entcr edent i al s , and thatt hei rfather ’ s hos pi t al di s char ge p a p e rs h a d b e e n f

o rg e d . L a stly , the S m ith s c laim e d th a t A tto rn e yW ilso n , b ya g re e in g to t he s et t l ement , had cons pi r ed w i t h t he def ens e t o coverup t he def endant s ’ m al pr act i ce. A l l defe ndant s m oved t o di s m i s s t he compl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 12( b) ( 1) . Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng on J une 23, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatt he Sm i t hs ’ compl ai ntw as an i m pr operat t empt t o appea l fr om t he s t at e court ’ s deci s i on t o enfor ce the s et t l ementagr eement , and hel d t hati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t hatdeci s i on undert he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne. T he D i s t r i ct C our tfur t herhel d thatt he compl ai ntdi d notal l ege a nybas i s forfede r al ques t i on or di ver s i t yj ur i s di ct i on. T her efor e, byor derent er ed J ul y7, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed t he def endant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s forl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. 1 U pon r evi ew , w e bel i eve thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overt he Sm i t hs ’ compl ai nt . Fi r s t , i ns ofaras t he Sm i t hs ’ compl ai nts oughtI n t hei rN ot i ce of A ppeal and thei rbr i ef, t he Sm i t hs m ake s ever al al l egat i ons 2 abo ut m i no ri t ydis cri m i nati on i n the st at e’s l egal s y st em . W e need no tadd res s these al l egat i ons , how ever , beca us e theyw er e notr ai s ed bef or e the D i s t r i ctC our t . See B r enner v. L ocal 514, U ni t ed B hd. of C arpent er s and J oi ner s of A m . , 927 F. 2d 1283, 1298 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). 4 re v iew o f

th e sta te c o u rt’s r u lin g o n th e se ttl e m e n t ag re e m e n t, th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly hel d t hati tfal l s s quar el yw i t hi n t he cl as s of ac t i ons pr ohi bi t ed byt he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne. See D es i ’ s Pi zza , I nc. v. C i t yof W i l kes B arr e, 321 F. 3d 411, 419 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( expl ai ni ng t hat , pur s uantt o t he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne, di s t r i ctcour t s l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o adj udi cat e ac t i ons i n w hi ch the r el i ef r eques t ed r equi r es t he courtt o det erm i ne thatt he sta te c o u rt’s d e c isio n w a s w ro n g ). F u rth e rm o re , the D istric t C o u rt c o u ld n o t en ter tain fede r al ques t i on j ur i s di ct i on overt he compl ai ntbeca us e i tdi d notal l ege a nyvi ol at i ons of a f ed era l st atute o r th e C o n sti tuti o n . S ee 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 3 1 . F inally , as th e D istri ct C o u rt 2 not ed, j ur i s di ct i on coul d notbe bas ed on di ver s i t yof ci t i zens hi p betw een the part i es b e c a u s e th e p a rt ie s in th is a c tio n a re a ll c itiz e n s o f th e C o m m o n w e a lth o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia . See 28 U . S. C . § 1332. T her efor e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded thati tl acke d su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n o v e r th e c o m p lain t.T he Sm i t hs ’ “M ot i on t o A dm i tG enui nenes s of Fact s , ” i n w hi ch theyas k t he 3 defe ndant s t o admi tordenyt he trut h of 13 s t at ement s , i s deni ed. T he Feder al R ul es of A p p e llate P ro c e d u re d o n o t p ro v id e f o r re q u e sts f

o r a d m iss io n s in m a tters o n a p p e a l to this C o u rt ; a co u rto f a p p ea ls r ev iew s a d istri ct co u rt ’s j u d g m en t bas ed o n the re co rd b e f o re th e d istric t co u rt. 5 W e have r evi ew ed the Sm i t hs ’ r emai ni ng ar gum ent s , and have concl uded thatt hey ar e w i t houtm er i t . A ccor di ngl y , fort he r eas ons s etfor t h above, w e w i l l aff i r m t he 3 ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.