PHILADELPHIA – A panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the ruling of a lower federal court, which stated that a pair of professional malpractice cases were properly dismissed due to their not containing certificates of merit.
On May 3, Third Circuit judges Thomas L. Ambro, David J. Porter and Anthony J. Scirica upheld the dismissal in favor of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Bar Association, the Chester County Bar Association and William P. Mahon, and against plaintiff Randall Winslow.
Winslow sued the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, two bar associations, and a state trial judge, seeking to invalidate Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.3, which requires a certificate of merit (COM) in professional malpractice cases.
Winslow claimed that his inability to afford a COM meant that Rule 1042.3 created an unconstitutional barrier to certain types of litigants and litigation. Counsel for three of the defendants entered appearances and moved to dismiss the complaint.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the motions based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a rule which holds that federal courts other than the U.S. Supreme Court should not sit in direct review of state court decisions, unless Congress has specifically authorized such relief.
“The District Court determined that Winslow was, in effect, seeking federal court review of two state-court malpractice cases that he lost due to lack of COMs. To support its determination, the District Court cited our decision affirming the Rooker-Feldman-based dismissal of Winslow’s virtually-identical-in-substance prior suit,” the Third Circuit said.
Winslow then appealed, on the basis that the District Court misapplied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. It was a rationale that the federal appellate court did not share.
“First, this Court already has determined that Rooker-Feldman bars any attempt by Winslow to collaterally attack the adverse state court ruling, in his original malpractice case, by way of a federal court action to invalidate Rule 1042.3. To the extent that Winslow has attempted to do just that (again), the District Court was correct to support its jurisdictional ruling by invoking the doctrine of issue preclusion,” the Court stated.
Additionally, the Court determined that it did not matter that Winslow’s complaint referenced a failed malpractice action against an attorney different from the attorney whose alleged malpractice was at issue in the prior complaint.
In reference to that separate malpractice case, Rooker-Feldman applies with equal force, using the same rationale previously employed by this Court and by the District Court below. As a result, the Third Circuit said, issue preclusion barred “what appears to be nothing more than a request by Winslow to re-litigate the past.”
“Third, even if Winslow were right that there is some facet of his case that eludes Rooker-Feldman – on the theories that he claims prospective injury or instead an injury to the general public – it would not alter our disposition. Winslow lacks constitutional standing to press either theory,” the Third Circuit said.
“Specifically, there is still ‘no foreseeable prospect that Rule 1042.3 will bar some hypothetical future lawsuit [Winslow] might assert against an attorney or other licensed professional.’ And Winslow cannot demonstrate standing by alleging that he seeks vindication for the public generally. Accordingly, the District Court’s judgment will be affirmed.”
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 20-1475
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:19-cv-04632
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com