Opinion ID: 2833603
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Our History with Pennsylvania’s

Text: COM Regime and New Jersey’s AOM Statute This is not the first time we have addressed the requirement that a malpractice plaintiff provide a certificate or affidavit of merit, and we are guided by our precedent in Chamberlain, 210 F.3d 158-61 and Nuveen, 692 F.3d at 300310, analyzing New Jersey’s AOM statute; and LiggonRedding, 659 F.3d 258, addressing Pennsylvania’s COM regime. That precedent supports the notion that the COM regime’s notice requirement should be construed as substantive law. In Chamberlain, we examined New Jersey’s AOM statute, which, like Pennsylvania’s COM requirement, provides that if an AOM is not filed within sixty days of filing a malpractice suit that action may be dismissed with prejudice. N.J.S.A. § 2A:53A-27, 29; Chamberlain, 210 F.3d 14 at 157-58.10 After conducting our three-step Erie analysis, we held that the AOM statute did “not conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and must be applied by federal courts sitting in diversity.” Chamberlain, 210 F.3d at 157. We also concluded that a failure to apply the statute would be contrary to the twin aims of Erie because a meritless malpractice claim in federal court could not be ended at the same early stage as in state court, thus encouraging forum shopping by plaintiffs and unfairly exposing professionals to meritless claims. Id. at 161. Having identified no countervailing federal interest preventing the law’s application in federal court, we applied the AOM requirement as substantive law. Id. Most importantly for today’s purposes, however, we did not apply the requirement untethered from its conditions. Instead, we applied the primary condition precedent to dismissal, i.e., that sixty days (or 120 days for good cause shown) must have passed from the time of suit without the production of an AOM, see id. at 163, as well as New Jersey’s four exceptions to dismissal with prejudice, see Nuveen, 692 F.3d at 305. As one would expect, when faced with Pennsylvania’s COM rule soon thereafter in Liggon-Redding, we concluded that it also did not conflict with any Federal Rule, including Rules 7, 8, 9, 11 or 41(b); that it was outcome determinative; that failing to apply it would encourage forum shopping and result in inequitable administration of the law; and that no countervailing federal interest prevented its application in 10 New Jersey’s AOM statute provides for a sixty-day extension of time to file the AOM for good cause shown, and provides for dismissal with prejudice, rather than without. N.J.S.A. § 2A:53A-27, 29; Chamberlain, 210 F.3d at 157-58. 15 federal court. 659 F.3d at 262-65. And, as in New Jersey, because enforcing the rule without its consequence would be a rather pointless exercise, we also enforced Pennsylvania’s own penalty for failing to comply, along with its primary condition precedent—that a defendant may move to dismiss an action without prejudice only when sixty days have passed from the time of suit without the production of a COM. See id. at 263. Because we reversed on the ground that the pro se plaintiff in Liggon-Redding in fact had complied with the COM requirement, we had no need to consider Pennsylvania’s equitable exceptions of substantial compliance or justifiable excuse, nor did we determine whether the other conditions precedent to dismissing an action, including the notice requirement, were substantive law. In fact, all of those additional conditions, save one—that a timely motion for an extension of time could not be pending—were not enacted until after the plaintiff in LiggonRedding initiated her suit. See id. at 260 (stating the plaintiff’s COM was due on January 18, 2008); Pa.R.C.P. No. 1042.6 (noting amendments adopted and effective on June 16, 2008).11 11 The changes to the Pennsylvania Rules were made effective on June 16, 2008, after the court had received briefing on the issue, but before it finally dismissed the case in October 2008. See Redding v. Estate of Sugarman, No. 074591, 2008 WL 4682617, at  (E.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2008). The court did not mention the amendments there, but even if it had, notice was not an issue, as the court in Liggon-Redding repeatedly provided notice to the pro se plaintiff. 659 F.3d at 260-61. 16 What Chamberlain, Nuveen, and Liggon-Redding reflect is that we have already applied as substantive law the COM requirement and its New Jersey analogue, along with each state’s consequence of failing to comply, and at least one associated condition precedent to dismissal. Uchal, moreover, does not argue that we should ignore all the substance of Rule 1042.7, for it is that Rule which vested him with the right to dismissal in the first place. Instead, he seeks to enforce only that portion of Rule 1042.7 that is favorable to him. That is, he would have us apply a defendant’s right to dismissal for a plaintiff’s non-compliance with the COM requirement, but ignore the fact that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has vested a defendant with that right only when a plaintiff receives thirty days’ notice.12 Neither our case law nor common sense supports that approach. Instead, they counsel that the notice requirement, as a condition precedent to dismissal, is substantive law to be applied, along with the COM requirement itself, by federal courts sitting in diversity. 12 Making his position more perplexing, Uchal stated at argument that at least one of Pennsylvania’s other conditions precedent to dismissal—that no motion was pending for a determination of whether a COM is actually necessary, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 1042.7(a)(1)—does apply. While we reach no conclusion as to whether that Rule is substantive law, we note the unreconciled conflict in Uchal’s position. 17