Court Opinion

ID: 9492151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:33:22.843328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:08.361801
License: Public Domain

NYGAARD, J.,
Concurring.
I concur in the judgment. I believe, however, that it is neither necessary nor desirable • that we predict whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would recognize apparent authority in this odd situation, because as the majority opinion makes clear, Farris learned of the settlement agreement within minutes and immediately repudiated it. Under these facts, I view this as a contemporaneous repudiation of whatever agreement her attorney reached with counsel for the defendant.
Alternatively, I would, suggest that we certify the apparent authority issue to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for it to decide. In Hakimoglu v. Trump Taj Mahal Assoc., 70 F.3d 291, 304 (3rd Cir.1995), we said that an issue should be certified to the state court “when: (1) the issue is one of importance; (2) it may be determinative of the litigation; and, (3) state law does not provide controlling precedent through which the federal court could resolve the issue.” I think this case qualifies. In any event, I would avoid making the prediction.