Filed: Jan. 28, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-28-2004 Cap Surgical Sup Inc v. Casale Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-4144 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "Cap Surgical Sup Inc v. Casale" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 1066. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/1066 This decision is brought to you for free and open access
Summary: Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-28-2004 Cap Surgical Sup Inc v. Casale Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-4144 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "Cap Surgical Sup Inc v. Casale" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 1066. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/1066 This decision is brought to you for free and open access b..
More
Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-28-2004
Cap Surgical Sup Inc v. Casale
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-4144
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Cap Surgical Sup Inc v. Casale" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 1066.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/1066
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.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 02-4144
__________________
CAPITOL SURGICAL SUPPLIES, INC.,
d/b/a CAPITOL MARKETING GROUP,
Appellant
v.
MICHAEL J. CASALE, JR; CASALE & BONNER, P.C.
_________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M..D. Pa. Civ. No. 01-cv-01338)
District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
________________________________
ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 2003
Before: SLOVITER, ROTH AND STAPLETON, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: January 28, 2004)
Gary P. Lightman, Esquire
Kristine Chrstensen, Esquire (Argued)
Lightman, Manochi & Kornilowicz
1520 Locust Street, 12th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Counsel for Appellant
1
Jeffrey B. McCarron, Esquire (Argued)
Kathleen M. Carson, Esquire
Swartz, Campbell & Detweiler
1601 Market Street
34th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Counsel for Appellees
_________________
OPINION
_________________
ROTH, Circuit Judge
Capitol Surgical Supplies d/b/a Capitol Marketing Group (“Capitol”) appeals
from the District Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants,
Michael J. Casale, Jr., Esquire, and the law firm with which he is associated, Casale &
Bonner, P.C. (collectively, “Casale”). Capitol’s claims involve the alleged legal
malpractice and related breach of contract by Casale. For the reasons that follow, we will
affirm the District Court’s judgment.
The background is set forth at length in the District Court’s order. Thus, because
we write for the parties, we will revisit the factual basis of the action only briefly.
Capitol is a distributor of medical products. The shareholders of Capitol are Norman
Horowitz and Sidney Stadler. Haven Pride, Inc. (“Haven Pride”) is an entity formed in
2
1999 by Robert Meacham and George Greico for the purpose of manufacturing adult
diapers; Capitol was one of the initial shareholders of Haven Pride, owning a 15%
interest. At Meacham’s request, Casale performed legal services regarding the formation
of Haven Pride. In return for his services, Casale received Haven Pride stock equal to
2.5% of the company.
Under an exclusive distribution agreement, Capitol was the exclusive distributor
of Haven Pride products. Initially, Capitol and Haven Pride operated under an agreement
they had drafted themselves, without Casale’s involvement. The entities later decided to
form a new distribution agreement to replace the initial agreement. Meacham consulted
with Casale regarding assistance with the new agreement and arranged a meeting with
Horowitz at Casale’s office to discuss it. Horowitz had never communicated with Casale
before that meeting in early 2000, and both Stadler and Horowitz knew that Casale was
Haven Pride’s attorney. After the meeting, Horowitz and Stadler negotiated on Capitol’s
behalf to have certain provisions included in the agreement.
Casale drafted the new exclusive distribution agreement. Horowitz sent proposed
changes to the new agreement to Casale, but there was no discussion with Casale
regarding the legal ramifications of Capitol’s proposed provisions. Casale did not
provide any comment to Horowitz regarding the new agreement’s terms. No one on
Capitol’s behalf asked Casale for legal advice during the negotiation of the agreement.
Casale made no agreement to provide Capitol any legal assistance in connection with the
3
negotiations with Haven Pride. Capitol did not pay, or agree to pay, any amount to
Casale for legal services. There was no written representation agreement between
Capitol and Casale.
The new exclusive distribution agreement was executed by Horowitz and Stadler
on Capitol’s behalf, and by Meacham on Haven Pride’s behalf. However, the business
relationship between Capitol and Haven Pride deteriorated in the fall of 2000. Capitol
filed a separate lawsuit against Haven Pride for breach of the exclusive distribution
agreement. Capitol and Haven Pride reached a settlement in that action, but the course of
that litigation revealed issues regarding the validity of the agreement.
On July 18, 2001, Capitol filed this action against Casale in the District Court
under theories of negligence and breach of contract. Specifically, Capitol alleged that
Casale was negligent and breached certain duties owed to Capitol in preparing the new
exclusive distribution agreement, and that Casale breached a contract with Capitol
regarding Capitol’s instructions to prepare a valid and enforceable exclusive distribution
agreement. Casale moved for summary judgment. By memorandum and order entered
October 25, 2002, the District Court granted the motion, determining that no reasonable
fact-finder could conclude that an attorney-client relationship existed between Capitol
and Casale. In addition, the District Court concluded that Capitol had not sufficiently
demonstrated any harm suffered as a consequence of Casale’s alleged negligence. This
appeal followed.
4
We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary
review over an order granting summary judgment. Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 276-
77 (3d Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is appropriate when “no genuine issue [exists] as
to any material fact and [when] the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We view the facts in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party and we draw all inferences in that party’s favor. See Reitz v. County of
Bucks,
125 F.3d 139, 143 (3d Cir. 1997).
In order to prevail on its claims, Capitol had the burden of establishing the
existence of an attorney-client relationship between the parties as a basis for Casale’s
owing Capitol a duty. In this case, it is undisputed that there was no express contract
between Capitol and Casale for legal services. Therefore, Capitol had to establish the
existence of an implied attorney-client relationship. Under Pennsylvania law,1 an implied
attorney-client relationship is shown if (1) the purported client sought advice or
assistance from the attorney; (2) the assistance sought was within the attorney’s
professional competence; (3) the attorney expressly or impliedly agreed to provide such
assistance; and (4) it is reasonable for the putative client to believe that the attorney was
representing him. Atkinson v. Haug, 622 A.2d 983, 986 (Pa. Super 1993). A request for
legal services, and an agreement to provide legal services, are necessary elements to form
an attorney-client relationship. Cost v. Cost,
677 A.2d 1250, 1254-55 (Pa. 1996).
1
There is no dispute that Pennsylvania law applies to this case.
5
The District Court concluded that the record is devoid of any evidence that
Capitol sought Casale’s legal services or that Casale agreed to provide legal counsel to
Capitol. Capitol argues that the District Court ignored evidence that Horowitz and
Meacham jointly sought Casale’s legal assistance in drafting the new exclusive
distribution agreement. In support, Capitol cites portions of deposition testimony by
Horowitz, Stadler, and Meacham in which each indicated that the parties wanted to
formalize their pre-existing agreement. Yet Horowitz also testified that Meacham
initiated Casale’s involvement with the new agreement and that his first contact with
Casale occurred at the meeting arranged by Meacham. Moreover, Horowitz and Stadler
both indicated elsewhere in their depositions that they did not request any legal services
from Casale.
Capitol cites other evidence, such as Casale’s references to multiple “clients” on
his billing entries relating to the new exclusive distribution agreement, as well as
instances where Casale had some direct communications with Capitol following their
initial meeting. However, we agree with the District Court that, although these facts
might bolster Capitol’s contention that it held a subjective belief that Casale was
representing Capitol, they do not create a genuine issue of material fact concerning
whether Capitol requested, and Casale agreed to provide, legal services. A subjective
belief that an attorney-client relationship was formed is an insufficient basis upon which
to find the existence of a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.
6
Atkinson v. Haug, 622 A.2d at 987-88. We have considered Capitol’s remaining
arguments and find them without merit.
Upon review of the record and the parties’ contentions, we agree that no attorney-
client relationship was formed between the parties and, thus, that there was no basis for a
duty to Capitol. For that reason, we need not reach the issue whether Capitol suffered
any harm as a result of Casale’s alleged breaches of duty. Accordingly, we will affirm the
District Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Casale.
_______________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
By the Court,
/s/ JANE R. ROTH
Circuit Judge
7
CAPITOL SURGICAL SUPPLIES, INC. V. CASALE – NO. 02-4144
/S/ Walter K. Stapleton, Circuit Judge
STAPLETON, J., Dissenting:
I conclude that there is a material dispute of fact as to: (a) whether there was an
attorney-client relationship between Capitol and Casale, and (b) whether Casale’s alleged
breach of duty to Capitol caused it to settle its litigation with Haven Pride for
substantially less than it would have received in the absence of that breach. Accordingly,
I would reverse and remand this case to the District Court for further proceedings.
The summary judgment record will support a finding that Capitol and Haven Pride
made a joint request of Casale that he prepare a distribution agreement for them and that
Casale honored that request by doing so. Horowitz and Stadler repeatedly insisted during
their depositions that a joint request was made at the initial meeting.2 If that testimony is
credited, it is clear that Casale accepted the requested representation by drafting the
2
1 Horowitz was asked at this deposition, “[D]id you make any specific request of Mr.
2 Casale during the January 2000 meeting?” Horowitz replied, “That he put together an
3 agreement for the business – for the distribution – to put together the distribution
4 agreement to be a legally binding document. I think myself and Mr. Meacham did that.”
5 (See Appellees’ App. at 76, 79.) This version of events was corroborated by Stadler, who
6 testified that “[w]e all together asked [Casale] as a unit, just as a matter of discussion, that
7 he would draft an agreement between Haven Pride and [Capitol].” (See id. at 262.)
8 Moreover, there is documentary evidence tending to show that Horowitz requested legal
9 advice from Casale. For example, on one of the draft versions of the distribution
10 agreement, Horowitz made a notation next to the termination clause which read, “What
11 do you suggest?” (See Appellees’ App. at 104-05.) At his deposition, Horowitz testified
12 that his question was directed to Casale. (See id.)
8
requested agreement and forwarding his draft to both Capitol and Haven Pride. Casale
does not claim to have told Capitol that he was only representing Haven Pride, and his
time records bear evidence which would support a finding that he understood this to be a
joint representation. In any event, whether or not Casale subjectively believed he
represented Capitol, the relevant issue is whether there is record evidence permitting a
conclusion that a reasonable client in Capitol’s position could have believed it was a joint
representation. Atkinson v. Haug, 622 A.2d 983, 986 (Pa. Super. 1993). I conclude that
there is.
While it is a closer question because the relevant record is less well developed, I
also conclude that Capitol has proffered enough evidence to avoid summary judgment on
the issue of whether Casale’s alleged malpractice resulted in harm to Capitol. It is
undisputed that Haven Pride asserted as a defense that the agreement was invalid because
it was not approved in the manner required for contracts with a director.3 While Horowitz
and Stadler acknowledged that they may have had other reasons for settling as they did,
their deposition testimony reflects their concern about this defense and would support a
finding that they would not have settled on the terms they did but for that concern.
3
1 The issue of whether the distribution agreement is invalid is not before us, and I
2 would express no opinion regarding it.
9
