Opinion ID: 3030393
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Elements of a Dragonetti Act Claim

Text: The Dragonetti Act codifies the common law tort of wrongful use of civil proceedings in Pennsylvania. 42 Pa. Con. Stat. §§ 8351–8354. Dragonetti Act claims may be brought against parties and the attorneys that represent them. Id. To prevail on a Dragonetti Act claim, a plaintiff must prove that “a person who [took] part in the procurement, initiation or continuation of civil proceedings against another . . . : (1) [acted] in a grossly negligent manner or without probable cause and primarily for [an improper] purpose . . . ; and (2) the proceedings . . . terminated in favor of the person against whom they [were] brought.”2 Id. The statute defines probable cause for purposes of the Act, in part, as follows: A person . . . has probable cause . . . [if] he reasonably believes in the existence of the facts upon which the claim is based, and either: (1) Reasonably believes that under those facts the claim may be valid under the existing or developing law; . . . [or] (3) Believes as an attorney of record, in good faith that his procurement, initiation or continuation of a civil cause is not 2 There is no dispute that the underlying medical malpractice claim terminated in favor of Dr. Schmidt. 5 intended to merely harass or maliciously injure the opposite party. § 8352. “[A] party seeking redress under [the] Dragonetti [Act] bears a heavy burden,” U.S. Express Lines Ltd. v. Higgins, 281 F.3d 383, 394 (3d Cir. 2002), because the plaintiff need not only demonstrate either probable cause or gross negligence, but must also prove the underlying action was filed for an improper purpose. See Broadwater v. Sentner, 725 A.2d 779, 784 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). The court decides the existence of probable cause, gross negligence, or improper purpose as a matter of law when the facts are not in dispute. See Wainauskis v. Howard Johnson Co., 488 A.2d 1117, 1122 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985); Meiksin v. Howard Hanna Co., Inc., 590 A.2d 1303, 1305 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991); Bannar v. Miller, 701 A.2d 242, 248 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). If there is a factual dispute as to probable cause, gross negligence, or improper purpose, then the matter is for the fact-finder to determine. Bannar, 701 A.2d at 249. Dr. Schmidt contends the District Court erred in granting summary judgment because there existed a dispute as to “credible fact” that should have been resolved by a jury. (Appellant Br. 24.) Dr. Schmidt contends the defendants did not have probable cause to initiate or continue the underlying malpractice action because the facts upon which they relied lacked any credibility. (Appellant Br. 23–24.) But the District Court held Dr. Schmidt’s failure to offer expert testimony as to the appropriate standard of care for attorneys initiating or continuing a legal action created no genuine issues of 6 material fact. At issue is whether Dr. Schmidt, in this Dragonetti action against an attorney, should have presented expert testimony to survive summary judgment.