Court Opinion

ID: 9880810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 18:00:25.898304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:57.911569
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 22-3302
                                       ___________

                                 DAVID HATCHIGIAN,
                                             Appellant
                                         v.

    KRISTEN A. MORRIS, Esq.; ABCO REFRIGERATION SUPPLY CORPORATION;
                    ROGER FAY, Esq.; SKLAR LAW, LLC
                   ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                       (E.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-02866)
                       District Judge: Honorable Chad F. Kenney
                      ____________________________________

                   Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                                 September 26, 2023
              Before: JORDAN, CHUNG, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

                           (Opinion filed: September 28, 2023)
                                      ___________

                                        OPINION *
                                       ___________

PER CURIAM

       Pro se appellant David Hatchigian appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his

complaint, which he filed against ABCO Refrigeration Supply Corporation (“ABCO”)

and the lawyers who represented ABCO in a prior state court action. For the reasons that

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
follow, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

                                            I.

      In 2018, Hatchigian filed an action in Pennsylvania state court seeking relief

against ABCO and other defendants regarding an HVAC compressor that he purchased

from ABCO. Sklar Law, LLC, represented ABCO during the time relevant to this case.

      ABCO’s corporate designee attended a deposition in 2019. Hatchigian

subsequently filed a motion to compel a second deposition of ABCO based on allegations

that a Sklar Law attorney directed the corporate designee not to answer questions about

the HVAC compressor and manufacturing issues. The motion to compel was denied after

a hearing in which the state court judge concluded that: (1) ABCO’s corporate designee

was produced in accordance with the court’s order; (2) ABCO’s counsel generally made

proper objections; (3) even if some objections were improper, the corporate designee

ultimately answered those questions that were relevant to Hatchigian’s claims.

      Summary judgment was granted in favor of ABCO in 2020. Hatchigian continued

to unsuccessfully pursue motions to compel another deposition of ABCO while a portion

of the case continued against another defendant. Hatchigian also filed motions for

sanctions regarding the ABCO corporate designee deposition, which were denied.

      Hatchigian then initiated the action underlying this appeal in the District Court in

July 2022. He named ABCO as a defendant, as well as Sklar Law and two of its

attorneys, Kristen A. Morris and Roger Fay. Hatchigian alleged fraud on the court,

professional negligence, and negligent retention and supervision. Specifically, he

claimed that the objections made during ABCO’s deposition by a Sklar Law attorney

                                            2
constituted discovery abuse that interfered with his ability to prove his claims. He also

claimed that ABCO’s motion for summary judgment was filed on the last day of

discovery in bad faith. The District Court dismissed Hatchigian’s complaint with

prejudice on defendants’ motion. Hatchigian timely appealed.

       We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise

plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal of Hatchigian’s claims. See Fowler v.

UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 206 (3d Cir. 2009). Dismissal is appropriate “if,

accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the

light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court finds that [the] plaintiff’s claims lack facial

plausibility.” Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011).

       The District Court appropriately dismissed Hatchigian’s complaint. First, even if

a claim of fraud on the court, ordinarily used to challenge the finality of a judgment, see

Herring v. United States, 424 F.3d 384, 386 (3d Cir. 2005), can be used to obtain an

award of damages, Hatchigian did not meet the relevant standard. To allege fraud on the

court, Hatchigian had to claim: “(1) an intentional fraud; (2) by an officer of the court; (3)

which is directed at the court itself; and (4) that in fact deceives the court.” See id. at

390. We have explained that such action “must constitute egregious misconduct . . . such

as bribery of a judge or jury or fabrication of evidence by counsel.” Id. (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). At most, Hatchigian alleged that a Sklar Law

attorney made improper objections during a deposition, which were later reviewed by a

state court judge who concluded that the witness nonetheless answered those questions

that were relevant to the case. Such behavior is not on the level of bribery or fabrication

                                               3
of evidence, as any improper objections could have been remedied by the state court if it

concluded that relevant evidence was withheld. Further, Hatchigian has not explained

how the timely filing of ABCO’s motion for summary judgment constituted fraud on the

court. 1

           Next, Hatchigian did not state a claim for professional negligence based on

opposing counsel’s actions. To bring his professional negligence claim under

Pennsylvania law, Hatchigian had to allege, among other factors, “employment of the

attorney or other basis for a duty.” Kituskie v. Corbman, 714 A.2d 1027, 1028 (Pa.

1998). Unless “special circumstances” are present, “[t]he general rule is that an attorney

will be held liable for negligence only to his client.” Smith v. Griffiths, 476 A.2d 22, 26

(Pa. Super. Ct. 1984). Hatchigian has not identified any precedent suggesting that this

case presents a rare “special circumstance” such that an attorney can be held personally

liable for negligence to a third party for making objections during a deposition on behalf

of a client, and we are not aware of any. 2 Similarly, Hatchigian did not state a claim for

1
   Hatchigian argues in his brief that he should have been able to change this claim to one
of common law fraud under Pennsylvania law or that the District Court should have
liberally construed his claim as raising a claim of common law fraud. However, such a
claim would have fared no better, as Hatchigian did not allege to have relied on a
misrepresentation by any defendant. See Scaife Co. v. Rockwell-Standard Corp., 285
A.2d 451, 454 (Pa. 1971) (stating the elements of claim for fraudulent misrepresentation).
Rather, he immediately challenged their representations in the underlying state court
action.
2
   Hatchigian seeks to convert this claim to one of negligent misrepresentation under
Pennsylvania law. Amending his complaint to add this claim would not aid him because,
again, he has not alleged that he relied on a misrepresentation by any defendant. See
Excavation Techs., Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pa., 936 A.2d 111, 115 (Pa. Super. Ct.
2007), aff’d, 985 A.2d 840 (Pa. 2009).

                                                4
negligent supervision or retention against Morris or Fay because he has not identified a

duty of care that Sklar Law owed to him in the course of representing an opposing party. 3

See Belmont v. MB Inv. Partners, Inc., 708 F.3d 470, 487-88 (3d Cir. 2013). Further,

Hatchigian has not explained how Morris or Fay acted outside of the scope of their

employment when they made objections on behalf of a client during a deposition. See id.

at 489 (explaining that a claim for negligent supervision typically involves wrongful acts

by employees that are “outside the scope of employment or not in furtherance of the

principal’s business”) (citation omitted).

       In this case, granting Hatchigian further leave to amend would have been futile.

Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed his

complaint with prejudice. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d

Cir. 2002). Hatchigian has not argued that he could offer additional factual allegations to

overcome the barriers to relief discussed above.

       Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

3
  We note that Hatchigian sought injunctive relief in his complaint, but he does not raise
that issue on appeal and has thus forfeited it. See In re Wettach, 811 F.3d 99, 115 (3d
Cir. 2016) (explaining that any issue an appellant fails to develop in an opening brief is
forfeited).
                                             5