KING v. BURR et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 12/7/17. 12/7/17 ENTERED AND COPIES EMAILED TO COUNSEL.(jaa, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Daniel KING,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION

Judge Charles B. BURR, II et al.,
Defendants,

NO. 2:17-cv-02315-MMB

BAYLSON, J

December7, 2017

MEMORANDUM RE: DEFENDANT RIVERWATCH’S MOTION
FOR COUNSEL FEES
In this case, Plaintiff Daniel King (“King”) alleges that his Fourteenth Amendment
constitutional rights to due process and equal protection were violated by Defendants Judge
Charles B. Burr (“Burr”) and Riverwatch Condominium Owner’s Association (“Riverwatch,”
and collectively “Defendants”), when Judge Burr entered orders in ongoing property damage
litigation between King and Riverwatch. The Court previously granted Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss, thereby mooting Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 1
Presently before the Court is Defendant Riverwatch’s Motion for Counsel Fees.
For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motion will be GRANTED.
I.

Factual and Procedural History
The litigation on which the present case is based originated in 2008 as a result of an

action in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County before the Honorable
Charles B. Burr initiated by King against Riverwatch. On June 21, 2010, Judge Burr entered
judgment in the matter in favor of Riverwatch on all of King’s claims. (ECF No. 9, Am. Compl.
1

After Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff moved to dismiss the Defendants’ Motion. The
disposition of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss rendered Plaintiff’s competing motion moot, but in any
event, Plaintiff’s motion was procedurally improper and legally nonsensical.
1

¶¶ 20; 22). On July 12, 2010, King appealed from the June 21, 2010 judgment based on his
allegation that the judgment had been entered when Judge Burr did not have power of authority
to exercise jurisdiction over the matter; the validity of Judge Burr’s ruling was affirmed on
appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. (Am. Compl. ¶ 24; ECF No. 10, Def. Mot.
I. ¶ 4). Two weeks later, on July 28, 2010, Judge Burr entered a dispositive order granting
Riverwatch’s preliminary objections and dismissing all post-verdict motions (“2010 order”).
(Am. Compl. ¶ 27). King again appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, and his
appeal was denied once more. (ECF No. 11, Def. Mot. II ¶ 16).
Four years later, on February 21, 2014, Judge Burr conducted a bench trial that resulted
in an assessment of $30,179.54 of attorney’s fees due by King to Riverwatch. (Am. Compl. ¶
41). King filed an appeal from the order granting Riverwatch’s request for attorney’s fees on
March 20, 2014, arguing that the judgment was void because it was entered before post-trial
motions were due. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 42, 45). Judge Burr’s determination was again affirmed on
appeal. (Def. Mot. II ¶ 16). Thereafter, on April 1, 2014, Judge Burr entered a dispositive order
dismissing King’s post-trial motions (“2014 order”). (Am. Compl. ¶ 46). King appealed this
disposition to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, which stayed his motion pending a
ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. (Def. Mot. II ¶ 16).
King has filed approximately forty-eight appeals related to this litigation. (Def. Mot. II ¶
15). The substance of his contentions in these appeals is that Judge Burr had been divested of
jurisdiction, per Pennsylvania’s jurisdictional statutes, at the time he entered the 2010 and 2014
orders, and therefore they must be declared null and void. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23-30, 42-49). In
these appeals, as in the instant matter, King asserts that the enforcement of the 2010 and 2014
orders has deprived him of “liberty and property rights in violation of due process and equal

2

protection.” (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29, 43).
King commenced his federal suit on May 22, 2017, seeking declaration of the invalidity
of the 2010 and 2014 orders; injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of the 2010 and 2014
orders; and reasonable damages. (ECF 1). On June 12, 2017, Judge Burr filed a Motion to
Dismiss based principally on the Court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and also asserting
alternative theories in support of dismissal. (ECF 7). King filed an Amended Complaint on June
20, 2017.

(ECF 9).

On June 26, 2017, Judge Burr moved to dismiss King’s Amended

Complaint on the same grounds. (ECF 10). On the same day, Riverwatch moved to dismiss
King’s Amended Complaint in a separate motion, echoing the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (ECF 11). On July 14, 2017, King filed a Response in
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF 12). Three days later, on July 17, 2017,
King filed a Motion to Dismiss the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, asserting that dismissal of
Defendants’ motion was proper under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (ECF 13). Thereafter, on
July 31, 2017, Defendants filed a Reply in further support of their Motion to Dismiss,
emphasizing the impropriety of retaining jurisdiction over the matter when the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine mandated dismissal. (ECF No. 14). Finally, King filed a Reply to Defendants’ Answer
to his Motion to Dismiss on August 17, 2017. (ECF 14). This Court granted Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss on August 24, 2017, finding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives the
Court of subject-matter jurisdiction over King’s claims.

(ECF 17).

Notably, although

Defendants challenged Plaintiff’s Complaint on four separate grounds, 2 the Court did not

2

The three other grounds were: (2) that the relief King seeks is improper, because declaratory relief is not
a remedy for past misconduct, and King has not satisfied the Article III requirements for standing to
obtain injunctive relief; (3) that King’s claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations for
personal injury actions, which is exceeded as to both of the orders for which King is seeking redress; and
(4) that Judge Burr, individually, enjoys absolute immunity from King’s claims because he acted in his
official judicial capacity and therefore is protected under the Eleventh Amendment. (Def. Mot. I at 3, 5,
3

consider the latter three grounds after finding it did not have subject matter jurisdiction. (See
id.).
Presently before the Court is Riverwatch’s Motion for Counsel Fees, filed on August 31,
2017. (ECF 18). Plaintiff filed a Response in opposition on September 21, 2017. (ECF 20). 3
II.

Relevant Statutes
The Motion for Counsel Fees grounds its claim against Plaintiff in 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)

and its claim against Plaintiff’s counsel in 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) provides:
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections
1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of
Public Law 92-318, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of
1993, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of
2000, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or section 13981 of
this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party,
other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of
the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial
officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial
capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs,
including attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess
of such officer's jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1927 provides:
Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any
court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so
multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and
vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the
excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred
because of such conduct.

9).
3

Plaintiff has also filed a notice of appeal. (ECF 19).

4

III.

Discussion

The Court has reviewed the Riverwatch Condominium Owner’s Association Motion for
Counsel Fees (ECF 18) and the answer filed by Plaintiff’s counsel (ECF 20). It appears without
contradiction that the Plaintiff abused the privilege of open filing in this Court, and in
Pennsylvania state courts, on a straightforward issue involving Pennsylvania real estate law and
procedures. The Plaintiff’s response states a number of conclusory arguments that do not have
any connection to the facts of the case and the underlying litigation procedures. The Plaintiff’s
Memorandum contains a number of concessions, and Plaintiff’s legal citations do not meet the
issue and are without any merit. The Court will grant the Defendant’s Motion for fees. Upon
review of the statement of requested fees, the Court finds it is reasonable and will enter an order
and judgment requiring the Plaintiff and/or his counsel, jointly and severally, to pay $3,985.00 to
Defendant, Riverwatch Condominium Owners Association.
The Court is aware that an appeal has been filed in this case by the Plaintiff to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

O:\CIVIL 17\17-2315 King v Burr\17cv2315 Memo re Riverwatch Mot for Atty Fees.docx

5