Jerrold Knoepfler v. Guardian Life Ins Co of Americ

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-3574
___________
JERROLD B. KNOEPFLER;
*THE ESTATE OF INTERNATIONAL MEAT TRADER’S INC.,**
Appellants
v.
GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA; BERKSHIRE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA
*(Pursuant to Rule 12(a) Fed. R. App. P.)
** Dismissed Pursuant to Clerk's Order Dated 1/24/2011
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 01-cv-05186)
District Judge: Honorable William H. Walls
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 6, 2012
Before: JORDAN, HARDIMAN and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 10, 2012 )
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Jerrold Knoepfler, proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing his complaint pursuant to a
Settlement Agreement executed by the parties. For the reasons that follow, we will
dismiss the appeal.
On October 10, 2001, Knoepfler filed an action in state court in New Jersey
against Guardian Life Insurance Company of America and Berkshire Life Insurance
Company of America (collectively “Guardian”), seeking recovery of disability benefits
under two insurance policies. 1 Guardian removed the action to the District Court on the
basis of diversity of citizenship. On March 25, 2004, Guardian moved for summary
judgment, arguing that the action was barred by the three-year period of limitations set
forth in the insurance policies. The District Court determined that Knoepfler’s claims
were time-barred and granted Guardian’s summary judgment motion. Knoepfler
appealed. Upon review, we determined that the District Court erred in granting summary
judgment in favor of Guardian and reversed and remanded the case for further
proceedings. See Knoepfler v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 438 F.3d 287 (3d Cir.
2006).
A jury trial commenced on July 13, 2010. On the morning of what was to be the
fifth day of trial, the parties, both represented by counsel, reached and executed a
1
Guardian Life Insurance Company of America is the parent company of Berkshire Life
Insurance Company.
2
Settlement Agreement. After the parties signed the Settlement Agreement, the District
Court held a hearing on the record where Knoepfler testified as to his mental fitness and
willingness to enter into the Settlement Agreement, as well as to his understanding and
acceptance of its terms. The District Court then dismissed the jury. On July 21, 2010,
Guardian sent a settlement check to Knoepfler’s attorney. On July 29, 2010, the District
Court entered the “Stipulation and Order of Dismissal,” previously signed by counsel to
both parties, dismissing the matter with prejudice. Knoepfler filed a timely notice of
appeal seeking review of the District Court’s July 29, 2010 order. Guardian argues, inter
alia, that Knoepfler lacks standing to bring this appeal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “[A]s a general rule, a party
cannot appeal a consent judgment.” Verzilli v. Flexon, Inc., 295 F.3d 421, 424 (3d Cir.
2002). However, exceptions to this general rule include a party’s failure to assent to the
agreement, the underlying court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and an express
reservation of the right to appeal in the stipulation. In re Sharon Steel Corp., 918 F.2d
434, 437 n.3 (3d Cir. 1990); Verzilli, 295 F.3d at 424.
In his appellate brief, Knoepfler does not argue that the District Court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over the case, or that the parties reserved the right to appeal in
the Settlement Agreement. Rather, he asserts that he agreed to settle the matter because
he “had no other option but to settle as the ‘deck of cards’ had been stacked against him
on all sides.” (See Appellant’s Br. at 1.) Knoepfler further claims that he has never been
3
presented with an original copy of the settlement agreement, but that the “terms [are] not
consistent with [his] memory or with [his] wife[’s]” (Id. at 9.)
To the extent that Knoepfler is attempting to argue that he did not assent to the
Settlement Agreement, the claim is belied by the record. On the day that the parties
signed the Settlement Agreement, the District Court, as well as Knoepfler’s attorney,
questioned him at length on the record about his acceptance of its terms. (Appellee’s
App. at 18-29.) Knoepfler confirmed that he had reviewed the Settlement Agreement,
that his initials appeared on each page of the document, and that his signature was his
own. (Id. at 21.) He also acknowledged that he was aware that the Settlement
Agreement was the final disposition of the case and that it barred him from taking further
action in any court. (Id. at 22; 24.) Knoepfler further testified that he was competent to
enter into the Settlement Agreement. (Id. at 23.) His wife also testified that Knoepfler
was competent to enter into the Settlement Agreement and that he did so voluntarily. (Id.
at 25-26.)
Knoepfler does not point to any evidence which might suggest that he did not
assent to the Settlement Agreement. He does not dispute that he accepted and deposited
the settlement check. His apparent dissatisfaction with the way in which the case
progressed before the parties executed the Settlement Agreement does not undermine the
fact that he agreed to it and testified on the record that he was competent to do so.
Accordingly, because no exception to the general rule barring a party from
appealing a consent judgment exists here, Knoepfler cannot appeal the July 29, 2010
4
order dismissing the case by stipulation of the parties. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
We grant Guardian’s motions to seal various documents filed in this Court.
5