Filed: Aug. 24, 2004
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2017
Summary: Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-24-2004 Bright v. Westmoreland Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 03-4320 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "Bright v. Westmoreland" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 355. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/355 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the
Summary: Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-24-2004 Bright v. Westmoreland Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 03-4320 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "Bright v. Westmoreland" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 355. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/355 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the ..
More
Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-24-2004
Bright v. Westmoreland
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential
Docket No. 03-4320
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Bright v. Westmoreland" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 355.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/355
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
PRECEDENTIAL APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES COURT OF FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT PENNSYLVANIA
___________ (D.C. No. 03-cv-01072)
District Judge The Honorable Arthur J.
No. 03-4320 Schwab
___________
___________
JOHN BRIGHT, Individually and
in his capacity as Administrator ARGUED MAY 12, 2004
of the ESTATE OF
ANNETTE BRIGHT, deceased, BEFORE: NYGAARD, McKEE, and
CHERTOFF Circuit Judges.
Appellant
(Filed August 24, 2004)
v. ___________
WESTMORELAND COUNTY; TAMI Peter M. Suwak, Esq. (Argued)
WHALEN, Individually and in her P.O. Box 1
capacity as a Probation Officer for Pete's Surplus Building
Westmoreland County; RICHARD Washington, PA 15301
YESKO, Individually and in his capacity Counsel for Appellant
as a Probation Officer for Westmoreland
County; ANTHONY C. GUINTA,
Individually and in his capacity as Thomas P. Pellis, Esq. (Argued)
Probation Supervisor for Westmoreland Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck
County; CITY OF MONESSEN; CARL 114 South Main Street
FRANZAGLIO, Individually and in his Greensburg, PA 15601
capacity as a Police Officer for the City Counsel for A ppellee County of
of Monessen; PAUL S. KUNTZ, Westmoreland, et. al.
Individually and in his capacity as Court
Administrator for the Westmoreland Thomas P. McGinnis, Esq. (Argued)
County Court of Common Pleas; JOHN Thomas, Thomas & Hafer
PECK, Individually and in his capacity 301 Grant Street
as District Attorney of Westmoreland One Oxford Centre, Suite 1150
County; CHARLES KOSCHALK Pittsburgh, PA 15219
___________ Counsel for Appellee City of Monessen,
et. al.
Mary E. Butler, Esq. (Argued) the legitimacy of the dismissal order. The
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania relevant footnote asserts that during a
Administrative Office of PA Courts preliminary case conference, which
1515 Market Street, Suite 1414 occurred before the due date for or the
Philadelphia, PA 19102 filing of Bright’s response to the
Counsel for Paul S. Kuntz, etc. appellees’ motions to dismiss,1 the District
Court indicated that it planned to dismiss
___________ Bright’s complaint on the basis of an
unpublished District Court decision. At
OPINION OF THE COURT this conference, the District Court also
___________ requested that in lieu of a reply brief the
appellees file a consolidated statement of
position. The attorneys confirmed at oral
argument that in response to the District
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. Court’s request they submitted a proposed
opinion and order of court, which the
District Court adopted nearly verbatim, as
I. its opinion and order. Therefore, Bright
asserts that he is appealing an order
John Bright appeals the dismissal of his
supported by an opinion that were
complaint. Bright’s claims arose when
ghostwritten by appellees’ counsel.
Charles Koschalk murdered one of
Bright’s daughters, Annette. At the time At our request, counsel for the
of the murder, Koschalk was on probation appellees supplied us with a copy of the
after pleading guilty to corrupting the proposed memorandum opinion and order
morals of Annette Bright’s sister. The that they had submitted to the District
District Court dismissed all of Bright’s
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review
over the District Court’s order. Morse v.
Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902,
1.
906 (3d Cir. 1997). Though not spelled out by Bright in his
brief, our review of the District Court
II.
docket indicates that a case conference
In his brief, Bright focused all of his was scheduled to be held on September
argument, except for a single footnote, on 17, 2003, that the appellees’ motions to
the merits of the District Court opinion. dismiss were filed on September 12 and
That single footnote, however, raises a 16 and Bright’s response to those
procedural impropriety underlying the motions was not filed until September
District Court’s opinion that undermines 26. This sequence of events in consistent
with Bright’s argument.
2
Court. 2 This proposed opinion is nearly Bright complains about the District
identical to the opinion filed by the District Court’s procedure, stating that “[i]t is hard
Court. Other than minor grammatical and to reconcile this evident overreaching with
stylistic edits, the District Court made only plaintiff’s reasonable expectations as a
two substantive changes. First, in the litigant for a fair and independent judicial
analysis section of the opinion, the District review of his claim.” Appellant’s Brief at
Court struck a single sentence from the n.2. We agree and will reverse and
appellees’ proposed opinion. Second, the remand the cause to the District Court with
District Court added a section that orders to engage in an independent judicial
dismissed the claims against Koschalk for review of Bright’s claims and the
lack of jurisdiction. appellee’s motion to dismiss, and, should
it again decide to dismiss, for it to prepare
Importantly, the District Court did not
an opinion explaining the reasons for its
substantively alter the section in the
order.
proposed opinion that dismissed Bright’s
state law claims based on the Pennsylvania III.
Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act
We have held that the adoption of
(“P.S.T.C.A.”). 42 Pa. C.S. § 8541 et seq.
proposed findings of fact and conclusions
This is significant because nowhere in
of law supplied by prevailing parties after
appellees’ motions to dismiss do they
a bench trial, although disapproved of, is
argue that Bright’s state law claims are
not in and of itself reason for reversal.
barred under the P.S.T.C.A. The District
See Anderson v. Bessemer City, N.C., 470
Court, however, adopted this section of the
U.S. 564, 572 (1985) (“[E]ven when the
appellees’ proposed opinion without any
trial judge adopts the findings verbatim,
real modification or explanation, again
the findings are those of the court and may
excepting minor stylistic changes.
be reversed only if clearly erroneous.”);
Lansford-Coaldale Joint Water Auth. v.
Tonolli Corp., 4 F.3d 1209, 1215-16 (3d
2. Cir. 1993) (disapproving of the verbatim
The District Court’s docket sheet does
adoption of proposed findings of fact but
not indicate that this proposed opinion
acknowledging the rule announced in
and order were ever filed and there is no
Anderson and noting that there was “no
certificate of service attached to the copy
indication in the record that the district
of the document that appellees have
court was unfamiliar with the testimony or
submitted to us. Because this document
exhibits or that it was using the proposed
does not appear in any other public filing
findings as a crutch; if [there were such an
and it is of central importance to this
indication] we might view the matter
appeal, we have included a copy of it
differently”). However, we made clear
along with a copy of the District Court’s
that the findings of fact adopted by the
opinion as an appendix to the opinion we
court must be the result of the trial judge’s
have filed.
3
independent judgment. Pa. Envtl. Def. than findings of fact and conclusions of
Found.: (PEDF) v. Canon-McMillian Sch. law; they constitute the logical and
Dist., 152 F.3d 228, 233 (3d Cir. 1998) analytical explanations of why a judge
(citing with approval Odeco, Inc. v. arrived at a specific decision. They are
Avondale Shipyards, Inc.
663 F.2d 650, tangible proof to the litigants that the judge
652-53 (5th Cir. 1981)). “The central actively wrestled with their claims and
issue is whether the district court had made arguments and made a scholarly decision
an independent judgment.” Id. based on his or her own reason and logic.
When a court adopts a party’s proposed
Here, however, we are not dealing with
opinion as its own, the court vitiates the
findings of fact. Instead, we are
vital purposes served by judicial opinions.
confronted with a District Court opinion
We, therefore, cannot condone the practice
that is essentially a verbatim copy of the
used by the District Court in this case.
appellees’ proposed opinion. This fact,
even standing alone, would be enough for There is, however, an additional reason
us to distinguish the holdings in why a reversal and remand is the
Anderson and Lansford-Coaldale. We appropriate remedy in this case. We have
agree with the Court of Appeals for the made it clear that the linchpin in using
Fourth Circuit’s observation that: findings of fact, even when they are
verbatim adoptions of the parties’
There is authority for the
proposals, is evidence that they are the
submission to the court of proposed
product of the trial court’s independent
findings of fact and conclusions of
judgment. PEDF, 152 F.3d at 233. In this
law by the attorneys for the
case, there is no record evidence which
opposing parties in a case, and the
would allow us to conclude that the
adoption of such of the proposed
District Court conducted its own
findings and conclusions as the
independent review, or that the opinion is
judge may find to be proper. . . .
the product of its own judgment. In fact,
But there is no authority in the
the procedure used by the District Court
federal courts that countenances the
casts doubt on the possibility of such a
preparation of the opinion by the
conclusion.
attorney for either side. That
practice involves the failure of the According to Bright’s unrebutted
trial judge to perform his judicial assertions, the District Court indicated that
function. it was going to grant appellee’s motions to
dismiss before it even received Bright’s
Chicopee Mfg. Corp. v. Kendall Co., 288
response to those motions. Indeed, Bright
F.2d 719, 725 (4th Cir. 1961) (emphasis
claims, again without a rebuttal, that he did
added).
not have the opportunity to object or even
Judicial opinions are the core work- respond to the submitted opinion and order
product of judges. They are much more
4
before the District Court adopted them as
its own.
Courts and judges exist to provide
neutral fora in which persons and entities
can have their professional disputes and
personal crises resolved. Any degree of
impropriety, or even the appearance
thereof, undermines our legitimacy and
effectiveness. We therefore hold that the
District Court’s adoption of the appellees’
proposed opinion and order, coupled with
the procedure it used to solicit them, was
improper and requires reversal with a
remand for the court to reevaluate the
appellees’ motion to dismiss in a
procedure consistent with this opinion.
5
