2006 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 4-6-2006 

# O ' B rie n v . V alley F orge S p ec 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 . 04-4278

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_2006

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 2006 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
" O ' B r ie n v . V alley F org e S pe c " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1305. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1305NOT 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- 4278 J O H N J . O ' BR I EN , I I I , TR U STEE O N BE H A LF O F M I N O R- PLA I N TI FFS; J OHN J OS E P H O' BR I E N, I V; DANI E L L E O' BR I E N; BR I ANA O' BR I E N; S I M ONE O' BR I E N, A p p e llan ts

v. VA LLEY FOR GE SPECI ALI ZED ED UC ATI ON SERVI CES

d /b / a T HE CR OS S RO ADS S CH OOL ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 03- cv- 03984) N o. 04- 4440 J OS E P HI NE O' BR I E N, M OT HE R A ND P AR E NT ON B E HAL F OF M I NO R- PLAI NTI FF S, SI M ON E O' BRI EN, BRI AN A O ' BRI EN, DA NI ELLE

O' BR I E N AND J OHN J OS E P H O' BR I E N, I V, A ppel l ant

v. VAL L E Y F OR GE S P E CI AL I Z E D S E RV I CE S CO RP OR AT I ON d o i n g b u s i n e s s a s T HE CR OS S RO ADS S CH OOL

( D . C . C i vi l N o. 03- cv- 05695) 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 i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e R . B ar cl aySur r i ck Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)O u r r e v ie w o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s g ra n t o f C ro s s ro a d s ’ m o tio n s to d is m is s is p le n a ry. 1 “I n r evi ew i ng t he mot i on t o di s m i s s , w e mustacc eptas true al l fac t s al l eged i n t he c o m p la in t a n d v ie w th e m in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to ” th e O ’B ri e n s . I n r e Mer ck & C o. , I nc. Sec. Li t ig. , 4 3 2 F .3 d 2 6 1 , 2 6 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 2 M ar ch 30, 2006 B efore: M cK E E , B A R R Y and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJudg es

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 6, 2006)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge A ppel l ant s J ohn J . O ’ B r i en, I I I , and J os ephi ne O ’ B r i en, thr ough t hei rcouns el J ohn J. O ’B ri en , Jr. , b rou g h t sep ara te su it s in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a on beha l f of thei rm i norchi l dr en, Si m one, B r i ana, D ani el l e, and J ohn J os eph ( “J . J . ”) , agai ns tV al l eyFor ge Speci al i zed Educat i onal Ser vi ces , w hi ch does bus i nes s as T he C r os s r oads School ( “C r os s r oads ”) . I n s hor t , the O ’ B r i ens cl ai m ed that C r os s r oads w r ongful l ys ei zed a s s et s found i n t hei rchi l dr en’ s bank ac count s . T he compl ai nt s w er e di s m i s s ed, and the O ’ B r i ens averthatthe “s ol e ques t i on” on appe al

“ r e l a t e s t o [ t h e ] s e i z u r e o f [ t h e i r ] c h i l d r e n [ ’ s ] . . . b a n k a c c o u n t s . ” W e wi l l a f f i r m. 1 I. J . J . w as a s tudentatC r os s r oads forfoury ear s . T he O ’ B r i ens , unhappyw i t h t heC ro ss ro a d s a lso re p re se n ts th a t “[ a ]t lea st th re e o th e r a p p e a ls to th e P e n n sy lv a n ia 2 Super i orC our tbyt he O ’ B r i ens ar i s i ng outof the s ame subj ectm att erhave be en ei t her a f f ir m e d o r d is m is s e d .” (A p p e lle e ’s B r. a t 2 n .1 .) 3 s ervi ces bei ng pr ovi ded byC r os s r oads , enr ol l ed hi m i n a publ i c s chool forthe 1999- 2000 aca demi c y ear . T heyr efus ed, how ever , t o payC r os s r oads the ent i r e s um of tui t i on c h a rg e d f

o r th e f in a l y e a r a t C ro ss ro a d s. C ro ss ro a d s s u e d th e O ’B rie n s in P e n n sy lv a n ia
s t at e courtt o r ecove rt he unpai d tui t i on. I tpr evai l ed, and the courtent er ed j udgm enton February5, 2002 for$15, 134. 00, t he ful l amount of the out s t andi ng tui t i on. T he O ’B rie n s a p p e a led . T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p e rio r C o u rt q u a sh e d th e a p p e a l, w h ich it des cr i bed as “r ambl i ng” and “ l ar gel yi ncompre hens i bl e. ” ( A 70, 04- 4278) 2 W hen theyappea l ed, t he O ’ B r i ens fai l ed t o pos ta bond t o s t ayexec ut i on of the ju d g m e n t. See P a . R . C iv . P . 3 1 2 1 (a ) ( p ro v id in g f o r a m a n d a to ry st a yo f

e x e c u tio n , i nt er a lia , “u p o n th e e n tryo f b o n d w ith th e p ro th o n o tar y , in th e a m o u n t o f p lain tiff ’s ju d g m e n t, in c lu d in g p ro b a b le in ter e sts a n d c o sts , o r in su c h les se r a m o u n t as th e c o u rt m a yd ire c t

. . . ”) . C ons equent l y , C r os s r oads exec ut ed on the j udgm ent , obt ai ni ng and s ervi ng thr ee w r i t s of att achmenton bank ac count s atthe Fi r s tU ni on N at i onal B ank on M ar ch 13, 2002. I n r es pons e, t he O ’ B r i ens fi l ed a mot i on t o vaca t e and s etas i de the att achmentand l evyi n t he Penns y l vani a C our tof C om m on Pl eas , cont endi ng thattheyr ece i ved i m pr oper not i ce a nd t hatas s et s of thei rchi l dr en w er e s ei zed, r ai s i ng w hol l ys t at e l aw gr ounds for
re lief. (A 3 3 -3 4 ) T h e c o u rt d ism iss e d th e m o tio n , an d th e O ’B rie n s a p p e a led a g a inT he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdecl i ned t o hearthe ca s e. 3 T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o di s m i s s ed the FD C PA cl ai m “[b] eca us e no r el i ef c oul d be 4 g ra n ted u n d e r th e F D C P A f o r a n yse t o f

f a c ts c o n sis ten t w ith th e a lleg a tio n s c o n tain e d in Pl ai nt i ffs ’ compl ai nt . ” ( A 9- 10, 04- 4440) 4 w i t houtpos t i ng a bond. T he Super i orC our taff i r m ed the di s m i s s al . ( A 73, 04- 4278) 3 T he O ’ B r i ens w er e notdet err ed. J ohn J . O ’ B r i en, I I I , fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n fede r al
cour ton J ul y3, 2003, l at eramended, and C r os s r oads m oved t o di s m i s s the compl ai nton A ugus t5, 2003. T he D i s t r i ctC our t , obs ervi ng thatthe compl ai ntw as “nota model of cl ar i t y , ” di s cerned thatt he “pr i m arycl ai m appea r [ed] t o be thatthe att achmentof the
m in o r P lain tiff

s’ b a n k a c c o u n ts w ith o u t p rio r n o tice v io late d th e ir D u e P ro c e ss rig h ts undert he Four t eenth A m endment . ” ( A 7, 04- 4278) O ’ B r i en al s o “as s ert [ed] a numberof
s t at e l aw gr i evanc es , ” ( i d. ) , ul t i m at el yr eques t i ng thatthe att achmentand l evybe s etas i de and the as s et s r etur ned. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notneed t o r eac h t he ques t i on of w hether t he chi l dr en’ s as s et s w er e w r ongful l yat t ache d, di s m i s s i ng the ca s e on al t ernat i ve gr ounds ; t he cl ai m s w er e barr ed both bythe R ooker

- Feldm an doctr i ne, as w el l as byr es ju d ic a ta . J os ephi ne O ’ B r i en br oughta s epar at e s ui ti n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , “ar i s [i ng] outof
exac t l yt he s ame ci r cumst ance s . . . , ” ( A 3, 04- 4440) , and cl ai m i ng vi ol at i ons of the Four t eenth A m endmentand the Fai rD ebtC ol l ect i on Pr act i ces A ct( “FD C PA ”) , 15 U . S. C . §§ 1692 et . s eq . T h e D istri ct C o u rtd ism issed that ac ti o n as w ell u n d er R oo kerFeldm an , and w arned co un sel abo ut the p otent i al con sequen ces of p ers i st i ng t o p res s

45

l egal cl ai m s ar i s i ng outof thes e eve nt s . ( A 11, 04- 4440 ( “W e ca ut i on Pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el t hati n l i ghtof thi s deci s i on and ourear l i erdeci s i on i n O ’ B r i en v. V

al l ey Forge Speci al iz ed Educ. Ser vs . C or p. , . . . anyfutur e compl ai nt s r egar di ng the s ubj ectm att erof t hi s l i t i gat i on m ayveryw el l run afoul of Fed. R . C i v. P. 11, w arr ant i ng the i m pos i t i on of
san cti o n s. ”)) A gai n undet err ed, t he O ’ B r i ens appea l ed t o t hi s C our t . T he appe al s w er e r efe r r ed t o t he A ppel l at e M edi at i on Pr ogr am. A r epr es ent at i ve of thatpr ogr am i nqui r ed of the bank and r ece i ved conf i r m at i on t hatthe chi l dr en’ s bank ac count s w er e i nt act . T he O ’ B r i ens conce de i n t hei rbr i ef thatthei rchi l dr en’ s “bank a ccount s had neve rbeen
s ei zed. ” ( A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at5. ) N onethel es s , theypr es s on, cont endi ng thatthe i nves t i gat i on r evea l ed a s ei zur e byC r os s r oads of $661. 44 “w hi ch w as i n exce s s of the j udgm entdebtt he s chool had obt ai ned i n t he s um of [$15, 134. 00] . ” (I d. ) II. W e nee d notl i ngerl ong overthes e appe al s . T he O ’ B r i ens do notchal l enge the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s R ooker

- Feldm an anal y s i s nori t s appl i cat i on of the doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a. T he ar gum ent s have be en w ai ved. M or eover , the “s ol e ques t i on” on appe al , as the O ’B ri en s an d their co u n sel fra m e it , is th e p rop ri etyo f th e se izure o f th e c h il d ren ’s b a n k a c c o u n ts. N o su c h se izu re o c c u rre d , as th e yn o w c o n c e d e , req u irin g a f f irm a n c e in
a n ye v e n t. A s i tw as neverr ai s ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , the ar gum entcent er i ng on t he $661. 44T he O ’ B r i ens r ai s e otherar gum ent s i n a hapha zar d m anner , none of w hi ch w i l l be or 5 need be addr es s ed her e. 6 is n o t b e f

o re u s. W e a lso n o te th a t ap p a re n tlyth e $ 1 5 ,1 3 4 .0 0 is s til l o w e d , alo n g w ith i n t e r e s t , t o Cr o s s r o a d s . I n s h o r t , i n a d d i t i o n t o n o tb e i n g p r e s e r v e d f o ra p p e l l a t e r e v i e w, th e c laim is o f

d u b io u s m e rit. 5 III . T hi s l i t i gat i on, and i t s “t or tur ed hi s t ory , ” ( A ppel l ee’ s B r . at2) , s houl d have l ong s i nce e nded. T he O ’ B r i ens and thei rcouns el have notbeen de t err ed bythe quas hi ng of t hei ri ni t i al s t at e appe al byt he Penns y l vani a Super i orC our t , norbythe s ubs equentl os s es in th e sta te f

o ru m , n o r b yth e D istric t C o u rt’s a ltern a tiv e g ro u n d s f o r d ism iss in g th e ir compl ai nt s and i t s r efe r ence t o R ul e 11, nor , r emar kabl y , even bythei row n admi s s i on t hatt he bank a ccount s “had ne verbeen s ei zed, ” ( A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at5) , the “s ol e ques t i on” p re s e n te d o n a p p e a l. (I

d. at 2.) T h is p e rsis ten c e in p re ss in g a p p e llate a rg u m e n ts u tterlylac k in g in m e rit ca lls to
m in d F e d e ra l R u le o f

A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re 3 8 . See i d. ( “I f a c our tof appe al s det erm i nes that an ap p ea l i s frivo lou s, itm ay , af ter a sep ara tel yfil ed m o ti o n o r no ti ce fro m the c o u rt a n d re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ityto re sp o n d , aw a rd ju st d a m a g e s a n d sin g le o r d o u b le c o sts to th e a p p e lle e .” ). C

f
. B eam v. B auer , 383 F. 3d 106, 109 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “[D ] es pi t e many cues fr om us and the D i s t r i ctC our tthathercaus e w as w hol l ym er i t l es s , B eam and her
couns el have pe r s i s t ed bef or e the D i s t r i ctC our tand aga i n befor e us . ”) . C r os s r oads s eeksC r os s r oads cont ends t hatw e have “the di s cr et i on t o s anct i on a part yforbr i ngi ng a 6 fr i vol ous appea l . ” ( A ppel l ee’ s B r . at14. ) “A l t hough oft en mi s t akenl yr efe r r ed t o as bot h, a n a w a rd u n d e r R u le 3 8 is n e ith e r a sa n c tio n n o r a p u n ish m e n t . . . T h e ra tio n a le o f R u le 38 i s s i m pl yt hatw hen part i es s uffe rpecuni aryl os s bypay i ng at t orney ’ s fee s t o defe nd a val i d j udgm entagai ns ta fr i vol ous appea l , theyar e as ent i t l ed t o be aw ar ded damages as i s a vi ct i m s eeki ng compensa t i on foranyot herfi nanci al l os s i ncurr ed bythe ac t s of a t or t fea s or . ” B eam v. B auer , 3 8 3 F . 3 d 1 0 6 , 1 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 7 R ul e 38 damages i n t hei rbr i ef, a r eques tt o w hi ch the O ’ B r i ens have notr epl i ed, but 6 have notfi l ed a s epar at e mot i on. “W e w i l l l eave i tt o [C r os s r oads ] t o det erm i ne w hether t heyw i s h t o pet i t i on fors uch an a w ar d. ” B eam v. B auer , 88 Fed. A ppx. 523, 526 n. 1 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (u n p u b lish e d ); s ee Beam v. B auer , 383 F. 3d 106, 110 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( aw ar di ng R u le 3 8 d a m a g e s ). I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.