Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-18-2009 Brooks v. Wachovia Bank NA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4026 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Brooks v. Wachovia Bank NA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1861. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1861 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 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.  NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 07-4026 RALPH BROOKS, JR. ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED Appellant v. WACHOVIA BANK, NA; WACHOVIA CORPORATION; EVERGREEN INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC.; EVERGREEN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC; EVERGREEN DISTRIBUTORS, INC. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D. C. No. 06-cv-00955) District Judge: Hon. James T. Giles Argued on February 5, 2009 Before: RENDELL and ROTH, Circuit Judges HAYDEN*, District Judge *Honorable Katharine S. Hayden, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.  (Opinion filed: February 18, 2009) Ann Miller, Esquire (Argued) Ann Miller, LLC 834 Chestnut Street, Suite 206 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Richard D. Greenfield, Esquire Greenfield & Goodman 780 Third Avenue, 48 th Floor New York, NY 10017 Counsel for Appellant Donna M. Doblick, Esquire (Argued) Mary J. Hackett, Esquire Gregory B. Jordan, Esquire Reed Smith, LLP 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Counsel for Appellee OPINION ROTH, Circuit Judge: This case centers on the preclusive effect of a 2003 settlement between defendant Wachovia Bank and the Parsky plaintiffs, a class of fund beneficiaries that included instant plaintiff Ralph Brooks. See Parsky v. Wachovia Bank, Feb. 2000 Term, No. 000771 (Phila. County Ct. Com. Pl.). The District Court dismissed Brooks’s class action claims, finding 2 them barred by the broad release executed in Parsky. On appeal, Brooks argues that the District Court misrepresented the allegations in his complaint, took too broad a view of the Parsky release, and engaged in improper factfinding. Brooks also challenges the adequacy of the notice he received concerning the Parsky release. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We have carefully considered the appellate briefs of the parties and the record, including the very thorough memorandum opinion of the District Court. For essentially the reasons stated by the District Court, we will affirm its September 14, 2007, dismissal of Brooks’s claims. 3