Ralph Difronzo v. John Chiovero , 406 F. App'x 605 ( 2011 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 10-1849
_____________
RALPH DIFRONZO,
Appellant
v.
JOHN J. CHIOVERO
______________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civ. Action No. 08-4590)
District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 16, 2010
______________
Before: SLOVITER, GREENAWAY, JR., and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: January 12, 2011)
______________
OPINION
______________
GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge
Appellant Ralph DiFronzo (“DiFronzo”) seeks review of the District Court‟s
decision granting summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim in favor of John
1
Chiovero (“Chiovero”) and of the District Court‟s dismissal of the claim for intentional
interference with a contractual relationship based on the statute of limitations. For the
reasons set forth below, we will affirm the District Court‟s decisions.
I. Background
We write solely for the benefit of the parties and recount only the essential facts.
On September 19, 2008, DiFronzo filed a complaint against his former brother-in-
law, retired Commons Pleas Judge Chiovero, and others, raising a variety of issues
related to the termination of DiFronzo‟s employment with the Court of Common Pleas.1
In response to multiple motions to dismiss, DiFronzo filed two amended complaints.
Chiovero sought to dismiss parts of the Second Amended Complaint. The District Court
heard oral argument on this motion on April 1, 2009, and that same day issued an order
dismissing the conspiracy count and the intentional interference with a contractual
relationship count. Relevant to the issues currently before us, the District Court, sua
sponte, dismissed the intentional interference with a contractual relationship count
because DiFronzo had not filed his complaint within the applicable two year statute of
limitations.
Following the District Court‟s disposition of the various motions to dismiss, only
one count remained — the malicious prosecution claim. After discovery, Chiovero filed
1
Following his termination, criminal charges were brought against DiFronzo based on
his alleged wrongdoing during his employment. Ultimately, the prosecutor filed a motion
seeking to nolle prosequi the charges, and the Court of Common Pleas granted this
motion. (App. 164a.)
2
a motion for summary judgment, which the District Court granted. The District Court
concluded that DiFronzo failed to demonstrate that the underlying criminal proceeding
was terminated in his favor, an essential element of a malicious prosecution claim.
DiFronzo sought reconsideration of this decision. After the District Court denied
the motion for reconsideration, DiFronzo filed the present appeal.
II. Jurisdiction
The District Court had jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We have
jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
III. Standard of Review
“„Our standard of review applicable to an order granting summary judgment is
plenary.‟” Kossler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181, 186 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Nasir v.
Morgan, 350 F.3d 366, 368 (3d Cir. 2003)). “We may affirm the order when the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, with the facts viewed in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Further, „[w]e may affirm the District Court on any
grounds supported by the record.‟” Id. (quoting Nicini v. Morra, 212 F.3d 798, 805-06
(3d Cir. 2000) (en banc)).
We exercise plenary review over a district court‟s grant of a motion to dismiss,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. Grief v.
Klem, 591 F.3d 672, 676 (3d Cir. 2010).
“In deciding a motion to dismiss, all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint
must be taken as true and interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and all
3
inferences must be drawn in favor of them.” McTernan v. City of York, 577 F.3d 521,
526 (3d Cir. 2009). To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, --- U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted). As a general matter, a district court ruling on a
motion to dismiss may not consider matters extraneous to the pleadings. However, an
exception to the general rule is that a document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the
complaint may be considered without converting the motion [to dismiss] into one for
summary judgment. In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 113 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d
Cir. 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
IV. Analysis
A. Statute of limitations
DiFronzo raises two arguments regarding the dismissal of the intentional
interference with a contractual relationship count based on the untimely filing of the
complaint. First, he argues that the District Court should not have considered the statute
of limitations since “Chiovero did not request dismissal because of any insufficiency in
the pleading of the Count for intentional interference.”2 (Appellant‟s Br. 22.) Second,
2
While DiFronzo provides a detailed discussion as to the sufficiency of his pleading a
claim of intentional interference with a contractual relationship, this discussion is not
relevant to the District Court‟s decision regarding the statute of limitations.
4
DiFronzo argues that the District Court misapplied the “discovery rule”3 in connection
with Chiovero‟s actions regarding the termination of DiFronzo‟s employment. (Id.)
The parties agree that the applicable statute of limitations is two years. We
conclude that the District Court correctly found that DiFronzo discovered Chiovero‟s
involvement in his termination in August 2006.4 During oral argument, the judge asked
counsel for DiFronzo “When did Mr. DiFronzo learn of Mr. Chiovero‟s action to get him
fired?” (App. 212a.) After taking a moment to review the arrest warrant, counsel
responded that “There is some knowledge that comes up in the arrest warrant.” (Id.) The
arrest warrant was served on DiFronzo on August 30, 2008. (App. 213a.) By counsel‟s
own admission, DiFronzo became aware of Chiovero‟s involvement in his termination on
August 30, 2008, at the latest.
Since DiFronzo‟s complaint was not filed until September 19, 2008, it was filed
more than two years from the date DiFronzo learned of Chiovero‟s involvement in his
3
“Under the Pennsylvania discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run when
the complaining party „knows, or reasonably should know (1) that he has been injured,
and (2) that his injury has been caused by another party‟s conduct. A plaintiff need not
know the exact medical cause of the injury, that his injury is due to another‟s negligent
conduct or that he has a cause of action. The „polestar‟ of the discovery rule is not the
plaintiff‟s actual knowledge, but rather „whether the knowledge was known, or through
the exercise of diligence, knowable to [the] plaintiff.‟” Miller v. Philadelphia Geriatric
Center, 463 F.3d 266, 276 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Bohus v. Beloff, 950 F.2d 919, 924
(3d Cir. 1991)).
4
Although the District Court found that DiFronzo‟s counsel admitted that DiFronzo
learned of Chiovero‟s involvement in his termination on August 11, 2006 (the date of the
arrest warrant), counsel in fact admitted that DiFronzo did not learn of this information
until he was served with the arrest warrant on August 30, 2006. (App. 212-13.)
5
termination. The complaint is untimely. We will affirm the District Court‟s decision.
B. Malicious prosecution
“To prove malicious prosecution under [§ ] 1983, a plaintiff must show that:
(1) the defendants initiated a criminal proceeding;
(2) the criminal proceeding ended in plaintiff's favor;
(3) the proceeding was initiated without probable cause;
(4) the defendants acted maliciously or for a purpose other than bringing the
plaintiff to justice; and
(5) the plaintiff suffered deprivation of liberty consistent with the concept of
seizure as a consequence of a legal proceeding.” Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d
497, 521 (3d Cir. 2003); see also Kossler, 564 F.3d at 186. “The first four elements are
the same under Pennsylvania law.” Kossler, 564 F.3d at 186 n.2.
Only the second element — favorable termination — is at issue here. The District
Court concluded that DiFronzo had not demonstrated the criminal proceedings had
terminated in his favor.5 The District Court noted that the prosecutor had terminated
DiFronzo‟s case by filing a motion for nolle prosequi, but this motion failed to
demonstrate DiFronzo‟s innocence.
DiFronzo contests the District Court‟s conclusion, arguing that a nolle prosequi is,
5
The District Court assumed, without deciding, that DiFronzo would have been able to
satisfy the remaining elements required to prove a malicious prosecution claim. (App.
9a.) Neither party questions that assumption; nor do we for purposes of our review.
6
in fact, a favorable termination of the proceedings, 6 since it constitutes the formal
abandonment of the proceedings by the prosecutor.7
This Court has noted that while “a grant of nolle prosequi can be sufficient to
satisfy the favorable termination requirement for malicious prosecution, not all cases
where the prosecutor abandons criminal charges are considered to have terminated
favorably.” Hilfirty v. Shipman, 91 F.3d 573, 579-580 (3d Cir. 1996). “A nol pros
signifies termination of charges in favor of the accused „only when their final disposition
is such as to indicate the innocence of the accused.‟” Donahue, 280 F.3d 371, 383 (3d
Cir. 2002) (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS: INDECISIVE TERMINATION OF
PROCEEDINGS § 660, cmt. a). “Accordingly, in Hector v. Watt, 235 F.3d 154, 156 (3d
Cir. 2000), we stated that a § 1983 malicious prosecution plaintiff „must be innocent of
6
As this Court has observed, “Section 659 of the Restatement (Second) Of Torts (1976)
provides: „[c]riminal proceedings are terminated in favor of the accused by
(a) a discharge by a magistrate at a preliminary hearing, or
(b) the refusal of a grand jury to indict, or
(c) the formal abandonment of the proceedings by the public prosecutor, or
(d) the quashing of an indictment or information, or
(e) an acquittal, or
(f) a final order in favor of the accused by a trial or appellate court.‟” Donahue v. Gavin,
280 F.3d 371, 383 (3d Cir. 2002). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted § 659 in
Haefner v. Burkey, 626 A.2d 519, 521 (Pa. 1993).
7
“The usual method by which a public prosecutor signifies the formal abandonment of
criminal proceedings is by the entry of a nolle prosequi, either with or without the leave
of the court as the criminal procedure of the jurisdiction in question provides.”
RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS: MANNER OF TERMINATION § 659, com. c, illus. e
(1977).
7
the crime charged in the underlying prosecution.‟” Id. 8
Applying this precedent, we conclude, as did the District Court, that the criminal
charges filed against DiFronzo were not terminated in his favor. The order granting the
motion seeking nolle prosequi does not indicate DiFronzo‟s innocence. In fact, the
order,9 nor any other matter in the record, says nothing as to why the motion10 was filed
or granted. Lacking any information indicating “the innocence of the accused,” DiFronzo
is unable to demonstrate that the proceedings terminated in his favor. Therefore,
DiFronzo has failed to satisfy the second element required to support a claim of malicious
prosecution. Thus, we will affirm the District Court‟s ruling on the malicious
prosecution claim.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the decision of the District Court.
8
In Hector v. Watt, the plaintiff sought monetary damages for costs associated with a
criminal prosecution that was dismissed after the plaintiff successfully moved to suppress
evidence. This Court observed that plaintiff‟s case placed him “on the horns of a
dilemma,” requiring him to decide between having his case treated as one for false arrest
or one for malicious prosecution. Hector, 235 F.3d at 156. This Court noted the
difficulties facing plaintiff in each scenario — “false arrest does not permit damages
incurred after an indictment ,” while malicious prosecution requires that the plaintiff
“must be innocent of the crime charged in the underlying prosecution.” Id.9
The order, in its entirety, states “AND NOW, this 28th day of NOVEMBER, 2007,
upon the request of Assistant District Attorney Andrew S. Gibson, the Commonwealth‟s
motion for nolle prosequi is hereby GRANTED as to all charges in the above-named
case.” (App. 164a.)
10
The motion seeking to nolle prosequi the criminal complaint was not submitted as part
of the record before us.
8