Filed: Jul. 22, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-22-2005 Doherty v. Teamsters Pension Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-3331 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Doherty v. Teamsters Pension" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 790. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/790 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-22-2005 Doherty v. Teamsters Pension Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-3331 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Doherty v. Teamsters Pension" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 790. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/790 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the ..
More
Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-22-2005
Doherty v. Teamsters Pension
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-3331
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Doherty v. Teamsters Pension" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 790.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/790
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 2005 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
NO. 04-3331
_______________
PAUL S. DOHERTY, JR.; RICHARD ST. PIERRE; MONOMOY, INC.;
ARROWPAC, INC.; ST. DOHERTY TRUCK LINES, INC.; ARROWPAC/SAN
JUAN FREIGHT, INC.; SADDLE RIDGE ASSOCIATES
v.
TEAMSTERS PENSION TRUST FUND OF PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY
PAUL S. DOHERTY, JR.; RICHARD ST. PIERRE; MONOMOY, INC.;
ARROWPAC, INC.; ST. DOHERTY TRUCK LINES, INC.; ARROWPAC/SAN
JUAN FREIGHT, INC.; SADDLE RIDGE ASSOCIATES,
Third Party Plaintiffs
v.
BRACH, EICHLER, ROSENBERG, SILVER, BERNSTEIN, HAMMER &
GLADSTONE, a Professional Corporation; ESTATE OF ALLEN H.
KLINGER; ALAN H. BERNSTEIN; WILLIAM L. BRACH; TODD C. BROWER;
RICHARD J. DRIVER; BURTON L. EICHLER; JOHN D. FANBURG; WILLIAM J.
FRIEDMAN; STUART M. GLADSTONE; CHARLES X. GORMALLY; JOSEPH M.
GORRELL;
ALAN R. HAMMER; BRUCE KLEINMAN; BRIAN R. LENKER; ALAN S. PRALGEVER;
DAVID J. RITTER; PAUL F. ROSENBERG; MICHAEL I. SCHNECK; HARRIS R. SILVER;
ALEXANDER J. TAFRO; JOHN DOES 1-X,
Third Party Defendants
*(Dist. of N.J. No. 92-cv-00523)
(District Judge: Honorable John W. Bissell, Chief Judge)
*CHARLES J. SCHAFFER, JR., Administrator of the Teamsters Pension
Trust Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity
v.
MONOMOY, INC.; ST. DOHERTY TRUCK LINES, INC.; ARROWPAC, INC.;
ARROWPAC/SAN JUAN FREIGHT, INC.; SADDLE RIDGE ASSOCIATES; PAUL
S. DOHERTY, JR.; RICHARD A. ST. PIERRE
(Dist. of N.J. No. 92-cv-00552)
(District Judge: Honorable John W. Bissell, Chief Judgel)
Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity;
Paul S. Doherty, Jr.; Richard St. Pierre; Monomoy, Inc.;
Arrowpac, Inc.; St. Doherty Truck Lines, Inc.; Arrowpac/
San Juan Freight, Inc.; and Saddle Ridge Associates,
Appellants
*(Amended per Clerk's Order dated 9/13/04)
_______________________________________
Argued July 12, 2005
Before: ALITO, BECKER, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Filed July 22, 2005)
PAUL A. FRIEDMAN (Argued)
Bisceglie & Friedman
One Newark Center
19th Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102
PAUL S. DOHERTY, III
Hartman, Doherty & Rosa
126 State Street
First Floor
Hackensack, New Jerery 07601
Attorneys for Appellants
PATRICK M. STANTON
CHERYL M. STANTON (Argued)
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
10 Madison Avenue
Suite 402
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
Attorneys for Appellees
________________________________
BENCH OPINION
_________________________________
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
JUDGE BECKER: I will deliver the judgment of the Court. The judgment of the Court
is that this case, this appeal will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
JUDGE BECKER: I note preliminarily that when I refer to subject matter jurisdiction I
refer to subject matter jurisdiction of the District Court. If the District Court had no subject
matter jurisdiction, a fortiori, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction.
So this is not a matter of appellate jurisdiction, this is a matter of federal subject matter
jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides for supplemental jurisdiction, and this being a supplemental
jurisdiction case, the existence of subject matter jurisdiction depends under the jurisprudence as
to whether or not the state claim forms part of the same case or controversy as the underlying
federal claim, in which case the Court must determine whether the two claims arise from a
common nucleus of operative fact.
As Judge Greenberg emphasized in his opinion in Lyon v. Whisman, 45 F.3d 758, 760 (3d
Cir. 1995), this is a fact-sensitive inquiry.
In this case the state law claim, which is a garden variety malpractice claim, arises
entirely out of counsel’s performance in pursuing the federal law claims. The facts giving rise to
the two claims are entirely separate.
Now it is true that some of the facts relevant to the malpractice action may also be
relevant to the question whether the District Court had jurisdiction over the federal suit – i.e. the
facts relevant to whether the Doherty parties requested arbitration in a timely fashion – but there
is no overlap between the facts relevant to the merits of the federal action, which concerns solely
the question whether the Doherty parties were liable for interim withdrawal payments, and the
facts relevant to the current action, which concerns solely the law firm’s malpractice in
representing the Doherty parties in the underlying action.
At all events, even if there was supplemental jurisdiction under 1367(a), the District
Court should have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 1367© because this claim
raises a novel and complex issue of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).
The New Jersey Supreme Court has yet to decide the assignability of a legal malpractice
claim. I will not burden the record with citation to the authority.
Suffice it to say that the parties have pointed out to us that New Jersey law is in
considerable confusion on this very important issue.
And under those circumstances, given the importance of that issue and the potential
consequences of such a decision, we think it imprudent for a federal court to weigh in, and we
believe that the District Court abused its discretion in failing to decline supplemental jurisdiction
under 1367(c).
For these reasons, the action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and
it will be remanded to the district court for entry of an order vacating its order granting summary
judgment.
I note in this regard that under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(d) the period of limitations for any
claim asserted under subsection (a) is tolled while the claim is pending and for a period fo 30
days after it is dismissed, unless state law provides for a longer tolling period.
So the able parties, able counsel here, can certainly do whatever they have to to get this
matter into state court where it belongs.
That constitutes the opinion and judgment of this Court.
Judge Alito, do you have any suggestions or corrections or additions?
JUDGE ALITO: No.
JUDGE BECKER: Judge Greenberg?
JUDGE GREENBERG: I don’t have any.
JUDGE BECKER: The clerk will arrange for transcription of this bench opinion by a
court reporter ultimately for publication in the Federal Appendix.
