PHILADELPHIA – A trio of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with a lower federal court that legal entities representing the City of Philadelphia did not commit fraud and misrepresentation, in connection with a settlement reached in a wrongful arrest case.
On March 1, Third Circuit judges Kent A. Jordan, Paul B. Matey and Richard L. Nygaard ruled per curiam to uphold a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in favor of the City of Philadelphia, attorney Amanda Shoffel, Judge Jacqueline Allen and an unnamed motions clerk, and against plaintiff Daryl Cook.
In 2010, Cook was convicted in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas of third-degree murder and sentenced to 20-40 years in prison. He filed a civil complaint in 2012 in that same court, against the City of Philadelphia and several officers involved in his arrest and prosecution, claiming that he was arrested without probable cause and was beaten and threatened into making self-incriminating statements.
In 2015, Cook agreed to settle all claims in exchange for $2,500. When the defendants mailed him a release form, however, he initially refused to sign it. Cook eventually signed the form, after the court granted the defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement.
Subsequently, Cook filed a motion to strike the settlement agreement, asserting that a 2014 order vacating a default judgment against the defendants was void, because he did not receive a copy of the petition to open the default judgment and the trial court never issued a rule to show cause why the default judgment should not be opened.
Cook further claimed that he was not served with a copy of the defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement. But, the trial court denied the motion and the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed that denial.
“In 2017, Cook filed a federal complaint alleging fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy, and collusion to deny due process under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 1985, based on the defendants’ conduct during the 2012 civil lawsuit. He claimed that Shoffel, an attorney involved in the 2012 civil lawsuit, committed fraud and misrepresentation by failing to properly serve numerous filings and asserting that she had the authority to make a settlement offer when she, according to Cook, did not,” per the Third Circuit.
“Cook also alleged that the defendants conspired against him when the trial judge failed to issue a rule to show cause before vacating the default judgment against the defendants, and failed to afford Cook a hearing on his motion to strike the settlement agreement. The District Court granted the City’s and Judge Allen’s motions to dismiss, reasoning that the claims against the City were res judicata and that the claims against the trial judge were barred on the grounds of judicial immunity.”
The District Court later granted Shoffel’s motion for summary judgment because, among other things, Cook’s claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. After Cook’s motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) was denied, he timely appealed to the Third Circuit.
On appeal, the Third Circuit said it agreed with the District Court that any claims arising from the trial court’s vacating of the default judgment – or any procedural defect allegedly committed by the trial court prior to settlement – were barred by the settlement agreement.
It was stated that in open court, Shoffel offered Cook $2,500 to “settle all claims” – which Cook accepted and he agreed to a “total settlement of the civil lawsuit.”
The agreement, which Cook eventually signed, stated that he released the defendants from all liability arising from the incident surrounding his arrest and prosecution. The Third Circuit emphasized that he now cannot, without any credible claims of fraud, duress, or mutual mistake, claim that the trial court erred by vacating the default judgment and allowing the settlement to proceed.
“Though Cook claims that Shoffel ‘misrepresented’ that she had the authority to enter a settlement agreement, he has provided no reason to doubt that Shoffel, as a representative of the defendants in the case, had the authority to propose a settlement agreement on their behalf,” the Third Circuit said.
“In addition, his claims of fraud upon the Court are meritless. The ‘fraud’ he alleges appears to be that Shoffel did not attach a rule to show cause to her motion to vacate the default judgment and failed to serve certain court filings on him. This apparent error does not satisfy the high showing required for fraud upon the court.”
The Third Circuit ruled to uphold the lower court’s decision.
“Finally, the District Court properly dismissed the claims against Judge Allen as she acted within her judicial capacity at all relevant times and is protected by absolute judicial immunity. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court,” the Third Circuit concluded.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 19-3851
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:17-cv-00331
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com