PHILADELPHIA – A Pennsylvania State Trooper who shot and killed an 18-year-old man near a street race on Interstate 95 in Philadelphia last year and who sought a stay of a wrongful death lawsuit has lost that opportunity and must answer the suit.
Anthony Allegrini Sr. & Jennifer Allegrini (as the Administrators of the Estate of Anthony Allegrini Jr.) of Glen Mills, Giovanni Patete and Vincent Tribuiani of Prospect Park and William Soper of Norwood first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 15 versus Pennsylvania State Trooper Robert Sobeck Jr., Unknown Pennsylvania State Troopers of Troop K and Unknown Philadelphia Police Officers, all of Philadelphia.
“On or about June 4, 2023, at approximately 3:30 a.m. on 1-95 South at Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Allegrini was operating his vehicle with Patete, Tribuiani and Soper riding as passengers, when Allegrini pulled his vehicle onto the left shoulder of the road to watch vehicles in the Northbound lanes of I-95 perform ‘tricks’ with their vehicles. After Allegrini pulled his vehicle on the shoulder, Allegrini, Patete, Tribuiani and Soper exited their vehicle and watched the Northbound I-95 cars perform the car ‘tricks,” the suit said.
“After several minutes of watching the cars, plaintiffs proceeded to walk back to their vehicle to leave the area. As plaintiffs got into their vehicle, defendant Sobeck pulled his state trooper vehicle in front of Allegrini’s vehicle and exited. Seconds later, additional state troopers and police officers pulled their vehicles to the area and also exited their vehicles. At no time were any of the plaintiffs armed with any weapons.”
The suit added that “within seconds of stopping his state trooper vehicle, Sobeck, without any probable cause, withdrew his weapon, climbed on top of the front end of Allegrini’s vehicle and then fired a single shot from his weapon directly through the front windshield, striking Allegrini in the chest while he was sitting in the driver's seat of his vehicle.”
“After shooting Allegrini, Sobeck brandished his weapon and shouted at Allegrini, Patete, Tribuiani and Soper to ‘get the f–k out’ of the vehicle. When Patete, Tribuiani and Soper emerged from their vehicle, fearing for their physical safety, Sobeck ordered them to ‘get the f–k on the ground’, which they did. Allegrini, while suffering a gunshot wound to his chest and bleeding profusely, also attempted to follow Sobeck’s order to ‘get the f–k out’ of the vehicle, but as he opened his door, he collapsed to the ground. At no time did defendants Sobeck, state troopers or police officers render any medical assistance to Allegrini as he was visibly bleeding profusely on the ground,” the suit stated.
“Allegrini, while on the ground bleeding from a lethal gunshot, shouted numerous times directly to Sobeck, state troopers and police officers for ‘help’, but none of the defendants responded by providing necessary medical assistance. After remaining on the ground for several minutes, Patete, Soper and Tribuiani were ordered to sit on the side of the road. Shortly thereafter, Patete walked away from the scene. Subsequently, Soper and Tribuiani were handcuffed by Sobeck and state troopers. During this time, Sobeck continued to have his gun drawn and pointed, threating to shoot his weapon at other people who had also pulled over to watch the Northbound I-95 vehicles.”
The suit continued that “while Tribuiani and Soper were handcuffed on the side of the road, they observed Allegrini bleeding to death and screaming for help, Tribuiani and Soper pleaded for Sobeck, state troopers and police officers to help Allegrini.”
“Sobeck, state troopers and police officers knew that Philadelphia Fire Department Medics arrived on the scene to help Allegrini, but defendants prevented said medics from getting to Allegrini, by purposely holding back Fire Department personnel from the scene for a significant time period after Allegrini was initially shot by Sobeck. As a result of preventing Fire Department medics from treating Allegrini, Sobeck, state troopers and police officers deliberately allowed Allegrini to bleed to death,” the suit said.
“After illegally handcuffing plaintiffs Tribuiani and Soper without warning or justification, state troopers took Tribuiani and Soper to the Troop K State Police Barracks, where they were questioned and remained for multiple hours until released. When Philadelphia Fire Department medics were finally allowed to treat Allegrini, they found that he was ‘dead at the scene.”
On May 7, Sobeck’s counsel filed a motion to stay the instant civil case, until the related investigation into the incident being conducted by the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office concludes.
The stay motion explained the factors to be considered in deciding whether to grant a stay include: 1) The extent to which the issues in the criminal and civil cases overlap; 2) The status of the case, including whether the defendants have been indicted; 3) The plaintiff’s interest in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to plaintiff caused by a delay; 4) The private interests of and burden on defendants; 5) The interests of the Court; and 6) The public interest.
“Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that, on June 4, 2023, defendant Sobeck utilized deadly force. Plaintiffs seek relief pursuant to their claim that defendant’s use of force was excessive and violative of the Eighth Amendment pursuant to Section 1983. Under Pennsylvania law, the use of deadly force is justified where the officer reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury. This statute requires the Philadelphia District Attorneys’ Office to make a determination on defendant’s actions on June 4, 2023. To that end, in a press conference held on June 4, 2023, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office announced that ‘[it] will lead an independent investigation into the state police shooting involving defendant.’ Plaintiff’s complaint, and the District Attorney’s review of this matter, are both derivative of the same questions of law and fact. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of a stay,” the stay motion said, in part.
“Even though there has been no decision issued from the District Attorney’s office on the outcome of its criminal investigation of this matter, it is ‘still possible’ to obtain a stay, even though an indictment or information has not yet been returned, if the Government is conducting an active parallel criminal investigation. Just as in Walsh Securities, Inc. v. Cristo Property Management, Ltd., where the District Court of New Jersey agreed that a stay was necessary where no indictments had yet been made, there have similarly been no indictments handed down in this matter. However, defendant has been apprised of the subject criminal investigation of this matter, and the District Attorney’s criminal investigation is still pending. Defendant Sobeck, the sole defendant of this case – both in the criminal investigation and now in this civil matter, will need to assert his Fifth Amendment privileges extensively, including to answer the plaintiffs’ complaint, interrogatories and depositions. Therefore, with the parallel nature of the criminal investigation and plaintiffs’ civil complaint, a stay is favored.”
The motion continued by examining the third and fourth factors.
“The only relief being sought in this case is monetary damages and, although plaintiffs’ financial losses are undoubtedly continuing, as with any plaintiff during the pendency of a lawsuit, plaintiffs are ‘protected from monetary harm caused by the delay by [their] ability to obtain interest as part of its ultimate judgment.’ The absence of prejudice to plaintiffs from a delay of the case thus weighs in favor of a stay,” the motion said.
“Defendant in this matter is the subject of a criminal investigation and must choose between waiving his Fifth Amendment rights and defending himself in this civil lawsuit, or asserting the privilege and potentially losing the civil case. Although the Supreme Court has held that it is not unconstitutional to force a defendant into this choice, a Court may nevertheless exercise its discretion to stay the civil case in the interests of justice. Defendant here, who is in similar circumstances to the defendant in Walsh, who was granted a stay from the Court, similarly seeks a stay of this matter, including all pleadings, interrogatory and deposition discovery until the conclusion of the criminal investigation.”
Finally, the motion took into account the fifth and sixth factors for a stay, concluding that all six unanimously pointed in favor of the Court issuing a stay in this case until the related criminal investigation is complete.
“Staying this case is better for judicial efficiency. If the civil action is stayed until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, then it obviates the need to make rulings regarding potential discovery disputes involving issues that may affect the criminal case. Based on the judicial efficiency in allowing the criminal investigation to conclude before defendant is forced to raise Fifth Amendment privileges that would impede discovery, this factor weighs in favor of a stay,” the stay motion stated.
“There is no harm to the public interest in granting a stay of this civil case. The public interest is promoted by allowing a complete, unimpeded criminal investigation. Furthermore, ‘the public’s interest in the integrity of the criminal case is entitled to precedence of the civil litigant.’ A stay in this case would benefit the public by allowing the criminal investigation of the defendant, who is a public official, to proceed unimpeded and unobstructed by any concerns that may arise in discovery in the civil case. Without a stay, pleadings, interrogatories and deposition discovery would likely cause inefficiency, because defendant and other witnesses will be forced to assert Fifth Amendment privileges. The strong potential for an unjust result outweighs the efficiencies gained by allowing the case to proceed. However, in this case, a stay would benefit the public by allowing the District Attorney’s Office to conduct a complete, unimpeded criminal investigation. In this case, there is no tangible harm to the public from the allegations contained in plaintiffs’ complaint. Any harm alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint would benefit from the completion of a criminal investigation of this matter. Therefore, the public interest weighs in favor of a stay.”
UPDATE
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro denied the stay motion on May 17.
The judge wrote that the Court needed to consider the following factors when weighing out a stay motion: (1) The interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) The burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) The convenience of the Court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) The interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) The interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.
“To support a stay, defendant relies solely on his contention that on June 5, 2023, the day after the incident, the Philadelphia District Attorney announced an investigation into the incident. Despite the passage of 11 months since the announcement of an investigation, defendant presents no facts to support any further development or progress with respect to the criminal investigation. In the absence of either an indictment or evidence of an ongoing or developing investigation directed at defendant, this Court finds that the above factors weigh against the issuance of a stay of this matter at this time. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for a stay is denied,” Quiñones Alejandro said.
The judge further ordered defendant Sobeck to answer the suit by June 14.
For counts of excessive force, false detention and false arrest under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, denial of medical attention, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiffs are seeking, individually and jointly, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, interest and costs of suit totaling $50 million.
The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph S. Oxman of Oxman Goodstadt Kuritz, in Philadelphia.
Defendant Sobeck is represented by Sarina M. Kaplan of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, in Harrisburg.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-01139
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com