Olick v. Kearney (In re Olick)
- Summarized by George Utlik , Capital One
- 13 years 5 months ago
- Citation:
- Olick v. Kearney (In re Olick), No. 12-1147, 2012 WL 4239423 (3d Cir. Sept. 21, 2012) (not precedential)
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- AFFIRMING three decisions from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that:
(1) plaintiff-appellant waived his objections to the summary judgment order and oral opinion rendered from the bench in March 2008 because he had failed to secure a transcript of proceedings in the bankruptcy court, despite having ample time to do so and despite having the option of moving for transcripts to be provided at the government's expense under 28 U.S.C. § 753(f));
(2) plaintiff-appellant failed to meet his burden of showing that defendants’ proffered reason for an adverse employment action (poor employment performance) was pretext because no reasonable jury would find that defendants-appellees acted with discriminatory intent when they terminated him;
(3) with respect to plaintiff-appellant’s claim under Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), no causal connection existed between plaintiff-appellant’s protected activity and the termination of his field-agent contract.
In addition, finding no abuse of discretion, the Third Circuit AFFIRMED the bankruptcy court’s imposition of sanctions based on a violation of res judicata and found nothing amiss in the procedure utilized by the bankruptcy court under Rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
- Procedural context:
- Prior to filing his petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, plaintiff-appellant (or the "debtor"), a former insurance salesman for the Knights of Columbus (“Knights”), filed a pro se complaint in a Pennsylvania state court against Knights and James Kearney (“Kearney”), seeking to redress both the circumstances of his termination from employment and the adverse benefits-related consequences of the termination.
Aetna Life Insurance Company (“Aetna”), who had been added as defendant to the state court litigation, removed the matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the “District Court”). The matter was eventually consolidated with another federal suit against the same defendants. The final party, Thomas Jenkins (“Jenkins”), was added to the consolidated litigation via amended complaint shortly thereafter.
In a thorough opinion, the District Court granted some parts of the defendants’ motions to dismiss and denied other parts without prejudice to later renewal via motion for summary judgment. The District Court then granted the plaintiff-appellant’s motion to dismiss the case without prejudice.
The District Court’s dismissal of the consolidated matters, however, did not bring the litigation to a close because plaintiff-appellant had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection a few days earlier and immediately commenced two adversary proceedings, asserting against the same defendants substantially the same claims he had asserted earlier in the state and federal courts.
Recognizing a potential duplication problem, the bankruptcy court decided to treat the debtor’s new actions as proceedings “designed to ‘complete’ the prior litigation . . . that was near disposition (by summary judgment and/or trial)”. The bankruptcy court reviewed the debtor’s voluminous filings, structuring the allegations into ten recognizable claims, and resolved several of the claims by granting motions to dismiss and summary judgment motions before proceeding to trial.
First, in a March 2008 oral opinion rendered from the bench, the bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on a number of claims. Second, on motions for reconsideration in an October 2008 opinion, the bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of Jenkins on the retaliation claim and also granted summary judgment in favor of Jenkins, Kearney and the Nights on the discrimination claim. Third, following trail on the remaining claims in December of 2008, the bankruptcy court rendered a comprehensive opinion and entered judgment in favor of the debtor and against the Knights for a combined judgment in the amount of $14,997.83. In addition, the bankruptcy court sanctioned the debtor in the amount of $1,000 for his attempt to relitigate claims against Aetna that had already been dismissed by the District Court.
The debtor appealed in forma pauperis to the District Court, attacking the four orders of the bankruptcy court. The District Court affirmed. While the debtor failed to timely appeal the district court’s decision, he filed a motion under Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, in which he claimed to have never received the court’s final order, along with a tardy notice of appeal. The District Court granted the motion, brining the matter before the Third Circuit.
- Facts:
- The Third Circuit's decision does not provide an extended factual recitation in light of the lower court's thorough decisions identifying the relevant parties and explaining the factual and complex procedural history of the case (described above).
Evaluating the bankruptcy court's orders "unfettered by the District Court's determination", the Third Circuit affirmed each of them. First, with respect to the summary judgment order and oral opinion rendered by the bankruptcy court from the bench in March 2008, plaintiff-appellant failed to provide a transcript of the proceedings and therefore failed to comply with applicable rules that require appellants to transmit the necessary elements of the record in support of the appeal. Thus, the Third Circuit concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in holding that plaintiff-appellant waived his claims due to noncompliance.
Second, affirming the bankruptcy court's summary judgment in favor of defendants on the discrimination claim, the Third Circuit held that construing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff-appellant, no reasonable jury would find that appellees acted with discriminatory intent when his employment was terminated.
Third, affirming the bankruptcy court’s post-trial decision, the Third Circuit concluded that no causal connection existed between plaintiff-appellant’s protected activity and the termination of his field-agent contract. Further, even if the bankruptcy court committed an error in its analysis of the claims, plaintiff-appellant pointed to no holding or outcome rendered infirm by the mistake. Thus, the Third Circuit found no reason to disturb the bankruptcy court’s judgment.
Finally, affirming the bankruptcy court’s decision to sanction plaintiff-appellant, the Third Circuit agreed with the bankruptcy court’s determination that a 2006 offer of judgment Aetna had sent was substantially equivalent to a later 2008 offer of judgment that plaintiff-appellant had accepted. Thus, the Third Circuit concluded that imposition of sanctions based on a violation of res judicata was appropriate and within the bankruptcy court’s discretion.
- Judge(s):
- Jordan, Hardiman and Aldisert, Third Circuit Judges
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
