PHILADELPHIA – A per curiam panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the ruling of a lower federal court, which had thrown out a lawsuit concerning a man’s dispute over the sale of property he says he acquired from his incapacitated wife.
On April 26, Third Circuit judges Kent A. Jordan, Cheryl Ann Krause and Peter J. Phipps upheld the dismissal in favor of the City of Philadelphia, John W. Herron, Paul Feldman, PNC Bank and Linda Hobkirk, and against plaintiff Victor Walthour.
“In January 2020, Walthour filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that forged documents led to the ‘illegal’ sale of property that he had ‘won in settlement’ from a personal injury action involving his incapacitated wife,” the Third Circuit said.
“Walthour named as defendants the City of Philadelphia; Judge John W. Herron, of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas; PNC Bank, the trustee of his wife’s estate; Linda Hobkirk, his wife’s guardian; and Paul Feldman, a lawyer.”
Judge Herron, PNC Bank and the City of Philadelphia all filed motions to dismiss, arguing, in part, that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Over Walthour’s objections, the District Court granted the dismissal motions, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because no federal question was presented and diversity of citizenship did not exist. Walthour then appealed to the Third Circuit.
The City of Philadelphia moved to summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment and Feldman has joined that motion, while Walthour objects to summary affirmance.
“On a ‘Designation Form’ submitted with his complaint, Walthour checked a box indicating that he was proceeding under a civil rights federal question. But neither the complaint itself nor Walthour’s objections to the motions to dismiss referred to any federal law,” the Third Circuit said.
“Although Walthour claims on appeal that the ‘District Court has federal question jurisdiction of this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983’, that conclusory assertion is insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction.”
According to the federal appellate court, Walthour did not properly prove diversity of citizenship between the parties and thus, the Third Circuit would affirm the dismissal.
“Walthour has also failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)(1), federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction when there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Complete diversity means that ‘no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any of the defendants,” the Third Circuit concluded.
“Walthour, at the time that he filed his compliant, was a citizen of Pennsylvania. And, for purpose of federal jurisdiction, the City of Philadelphia is also a Pennsylvania citizen. Therefore, the District Court properly concluded that diversity jurisdiction was lacking. For the foregoing reasons, ‘no substantial question is presented’ by this appeal. Accordingly, we grant the appellees’ motion and will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.”
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 20-3544
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00068
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com