Case Name: Ralph BROOKS, Jr. On Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated, Appellant v. WACHOVIA BANK, NA; Wachovia Corporation; Evergreen Investment Services, Inc.; Evergreen Investment Management Company, LLC; Evergreen Distributors, Inc
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-18
Citations: 312 F. App'x 494
Docket Number: No. 07-4026
Parties: Ralph BROOKS, Jr. On Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated, Appellant v. WACHOVIA BANK, NA; Wachovia Corporation; Evergreen Investment Services, Inc.; Evergreen Investment Management Company, LLC; Evergreen Distributors, Inc.
Judges: Before: RENDELL and ROTH, Circuit Judges, HAYDEN , District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 312
Pages: 494–494

Head Matter:
Ralph BROOKS, Jr. On Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated, Appellant v. WACHOVIA BANK, NA; Wachovia Corporation; Evergreen Investment Services, Inc.; Evergreen Investment Management Company, LLC; Evergreen Distributors, Inc.
No. 07-4026.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 5, 2009.
Opinion filed: Feb. 18, 2009.
Ann Miller, Esquire (Argued), Ann Miller, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, Richard D. Greenfield, Esquire, Greenfield & Goodman, New York, NY, for Appellant.
Donna M. Doblick, Esquire (Argued), Mary J. Hackett, Esquire, Gregory B. Jordan, Esquire, Reed Smith, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellee.
Before: RENDELL and ROTH, Circuit Judges, HAYDEN , District Judge.
Honorable Katharine S. Hayden, United Stales District Judge for the District of New Jersey, silting by designation.

Opinion:
OPINION
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
This case centers on the preclusive effect of a 2003 settlement between defendant Wachovia Bank and the Parsley plaintiffs, a class of fund beneficiaries that included instant plaintiff Ralph Brooks. See Parsky v. Wachovia Bank, Feb. 2000 Term, No. 000771 (Phila. County Ct. Com. PL). The District Court dismissed Brooks's class action claims, finding them barred by the broad release executed in Parsley. On appeal, Brooks argues that the District Court misrepresented the allegations in his complaint, took too broad a view of the Parsley release, and engaged in improper factfinding. Brooks also challenges the adequacy of the notice he received concerning the Parsky release.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. . We have carefully considered the appellate briefs of the parties and the record, including the very thorough memorandum opinion of the District Court. For essentially the reasons stated by the District Court, we will affirm its September 14, 2007, 2007 WL 2702949, dismissal of Brooks's claims.