Case: Wallace v. Powell/H.T. v. Ciavarella

3:09-cv-00286 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

Filed Date: Feb. 13, 2009

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case grew out of the criminal misconduct of two state court juvenile judges who sent hundreds of children to juvenile detention facilities because of bribes paid by the companies that ran those detention facilities. On February 13, 2009, the plaintiffs--children who had been adjudicated delinquent found to have violated their probation and parents of those children--brought this class action lawsuit against the judges. The plaintiffs, represented by multiple firms, sought damages against t…

This case grew out of the criminal misconduct of two state court juvenile judges who sent hundreds of children to juvenile detention facilities because of bribes paid by the companies that ran those detention facilities. On February 13, 2009, the plaintiffs--children who had been adjudicated delinquent found to have violated their probation and parents of those children--brought this class action lawsuit against the judges. The plaintiffs, represented by multiple firms, sought damages against the defendants for violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and assigned to Judge Richard Caputo.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the two judges ("Judge Defendants") received compensation from privately-owned juvenile detention facilities ("Provider Defendants") by agreeing to place children into care of those facilities instead of the county juvenile detention facility. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Judge Defendants received payments from construction companies that built the private juvenile detention facilities ("Construction Defendants"). The plaintiffs further alleged that the Defendant Judges removed funding from the County budget for the county juvenile detention centers. Other defendants who were allegedly involved in the financial transactions were the spouses of the Judge Defendants, the owner of the privately owned juvenile detention facilities, his holding company, and his law firm ("Powell Defendants"). The plaintiffs also filed suit against the County itself and several county employees.

Over the next several months, the complaint was amended with additional plaintiffs and was consolidated with two putative class actions, Conway v. Conahan and H.T. v. Ciavarella. The case was also consolidated with five other civil actions.

Various defendants filed motions to dismiss throughout 2009. On November 20, 2009, the Court granted the Defendant Judges' motions to dismiss claims related to their courtroom conduct on the basis of judicial immunity and denied their motion for all other claims. The Court denied a defendant psychologist's motion to dismiss on the grounds of judicial immunity because his behavior was administrative and not quasi-judicial. Next, the Court granted in part a motion to dismiss for the Provider Defendants on the basis that they were complying with a court order, but denied the motion for claims related to allegations of abuse. The Court also denied the county's motion to dismiss finding that the county was not subject to the immunity doctrines that applied to its judges or commissioners. 2009 WL 4051974.

The plaintiffs continued to amend their complaints with additional parties and information, and the parties continued to engage in arguments on several motions to dismiss over the next two years. The Provider Defendants sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and its agents from enforcing orders directing the defendants to expunge records related to this case, which was granted by the Court on June 9, 2010. 2010 WL 2367672.

Over the next year and a half, most of the defendants were dismissed, leaving the Judge Defendants, Provider Defendants, Construction Defendants, Powell Defendants, the county, and several county employees. On July 9, 2010, the Court dismissed the claim against the County because the plaintiffs failed to allege a policy or custom that created a cause of action for municipal liability. 2010 WL 2746394. On August 24, 2010, the Court dismissed all claims against the spouses of the Judge Defendants because the plaintiffs failed to allege actual participation in the conspiracy. The Court dismissed the substantive due process claim against the Provider Defendants and Construction Defendants because the plaintiffs did not allege deliberate conduct that the Defendants sought to harm the parent-child relationship; however, the Court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently stated all other claims against them. 2010 WL 3398995. On August 24, 2010, the Court dismissed all claims against the defendant county psychologist because the plaintiffs failed to allege facts that supported a finding that he violated their rights. 2010 WL 3398992.

On November 30, 2011, the Court dismissed additional § 1983 claims on interference with familial relations against the Provider Defendants and Construction Defendants because the plaintiffs failed to allege facts supporting their claim that the defendants deliberately directed their conduct to interfere the parent-child relationships. The Court dismissed § 1985 claims because the plaintiffs were not a discrete and insular minority. The Court also dismissed the Sixth and Eighth Amendment claims, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, the §§ 1985 and 1986 claims, and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act claim of the parents against the Chief Probation Officer. While it granted dismissal of all claims related to sentencing recommendations against the Defendant Chief Probation Officer on the grounds of qualified-judicial immunity, it denied dismissal of the claims related to her investigative role. Finally, the Court dismissed all claims against the County, the County Department of Juvenile Probation, and County officials. 2011 WL 6003916.

However, what was left was the core of the case: the Court denied dismissal of the punitive damage claims and the remaining § 1983 claims against the defendants.

On December 16, 2011, the plaintiffs and the Construction Defendants moved for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The Court approved the settlement on December 14, 2012. 2012 WL 6552134. For the purposes of the settlement, the classes were certified as:

1. all juveniles who appeared before former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark A. Ciavarella between January 1, 2003 and May 28, 2008 who were adjudicated or placed by Ciavarella ("Juvenile Settlement Class"); and

2. all parents and/or guardians of all juveniles who appeared before former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark A. Ciavarella between January 1, 2003 and May 28, 2008 and who, in connection with their child's appearance: (i) made payments or had wages, social security or other entitlements garnished or withdrawn; (ii) had costs, fees, interest and/or penalties assessed against them or their child; (iii) suffered any loss of companionship and/or familial integrity ("Parent Settlement Class").

The Construction Defendants established a cash settlement fund of $17,750,000. Class Counsel were allowed to apply for up to 30% of the settlement amount in addition to litigation expenses. After payment of the above, taxes, and payment to the escrow agent, the Cash Settlement Fund was distributed to class members who turned in a proof of claim. Following this settlement, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Construction Defendants on December 26, 2012. 2012 WL 6552134.

Throughout 2012, the plaintiffs and Provider Defendants, Judge Defendants, and Powell Defendants continued to engage in discovery. On March 21, 2012, the Court denied the Provider Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings that argued several of the plaintiffs' claims were untimely. Instead, the Court found that the statute of limitations was tolled because the Court was still deciding on the validity of class certification. In July 2012, the Court also denied several motions and cross-motions for partial summary judgment by the plaintiffs and Provider Defendants because disputed facts remained.

On February 1, 2013, the plaintiffs moved to certify the class, and the Court granted their motion on May 14, 2013. There were two classes based on which violations the children experienced, Class A and Class B. Class A included a class for the Violation of Right to Impartial Tribunal:

"All children who were adjudicated delinquent or referred to placement by Ciavarella between 2003 and May 2008, whose adjudications were vacated, expunged, and dismissed with prejudice by orders of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dated October 29, 2009 or March 29, 2010. See in re Expungement of Juvenile Records and Vacatur of Luzerne County Juvenile Court Consent Decrees or Adjudications from 2003-2008, No. 81-MM-2008 (Pa.)"
Class A also included two sub-classes. Subclass A.1 for Violations of Right to Counsel:
"All children in Class A who were adjudicated delinquent or referred to placement by Ciavarella without counsel and/or without colloquies on the record that informed them of their rights and the consequences of waiving those rights, before either waiving counsel and/or pleading guilty, during the time between 2003 and May 2008."
Subclass A.2 for False Imprisonment:
"All children in Class A who were referred to placement at PA Child Care and/or Western PA Child Care by Ciavarella between 2003 and May 2008."
Class B included children who experienced Violations of the RICO Act:
"All children who were adjudicated delinquent or referred to placement by Ciavarella who paid fees, costs, fines, restitution, or any other monetary charges associated with their adjudications and/or placements during the time period between 2003 and May 2008, as well as all children's parents or guardians who paid fees, costs, fines, restitution, or any other monetary charges associated with their children's adjudications and/or placements during the same time period."
2013 WL 2042369. The Plaintiffs, Judge Defendants, and Powell Defendants continued to engage in discovery throughout 2013. The Court granted default judgment against one of the Judge Defendants and several companies alleged to have participated in the wire transfers. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the other Judge Defendant on January 9, 2014, finding him liable for all issues that were not protected by judicial immunity. 2014 WL 70092.

On May 30, 2014, the plaintiffs and Provider Defendants moved for settlement and class certification. The Court granted final approval of the settlement on July 7, 2014. For the purposes of settlement, the classes were settled as:

"a. all juveniles who appeared before former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark A. Ciavarella between January 1, 2003 and May 28, 2008 who were adjudicated or placed by Ciavarella (the "Juvenile Settlement Class")' and

b. all parents and/or guardians of all juveniles who appeared before former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark A. Ciavarella between January 1, 2003 and May 28, 2008 and who, in connection with their child's adjudication or placement:

(i) made payments or had wages, social security or other entitlements garnished or withdrawn;

(ii) paid costs, fees, interest and/or penalties in their own names;

(iii) suffered any loss of companionship and/or familial integrity (the "Parent Settlement Class"), and

(iv) who were not fully reimbursed as a result of claims made in connection with the Mericle Settlement, defined in the MSA."

The Provider Defendants established a $2,500,000 settlement fund. Following payment of court-approved costs and fees, the remaining amount was separated into a juvenile fund (70% of remaining funds), parent fund (15% of remaining funds), and holdback fund (15% of remaining funds). The holdback fund was to be held back and used to pay costs of appeals until all final accounting was complete for the cash settlement fund. 2014 WL 12638876.

The Plaintiffs and Powell Defendants continued to engage in discovery. On March 10, 2015, the parties moved for settlement, which the Court approved on December 21, 2015. The classes were defined as:

A. All juveniles who appeared before former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. between January 1, 2003 and May 28, 2008 who were adjudicated delinquent or placed by Ciavarella ("Juvenile Settlement Class").

B. All parents and/or guardians of all juveniles in paragraph (A) who, as a result of their child's adjudication of delinquency or placement by Judge Ciavarella between January 1, 2003 and May 28, 2008: (i) made payments in their own names or had wages, social security or other entitlements in their own names garnished or withdrawn; (ii) had costs, fees, interest and/or penalties in their own names assessed against them or their child; and/or (iii) suffered any loss of companionship and/or familial integrity ("Parent Settlement Class") and were not fully reimbursed as a result of claims made in connection with the Mericle Settlement and/or the Provider Settlement, defined in the Agreement.

The Powell Defendants agreed to establish a cash settlement fund of $4,750,000. The Powell Defendants also agreed to make an additional payment of up to $2,750,000 based on Powell's net worth. The fund was established first to pay attorneys' fees and costs awarded by the Court, next to pay all settlement administration costs and costs of notice related to the settlement, and lastly, to distribute all remaining funds to the settlement class members who submitted a proof of claim form. 2015 WL 9268445.

At this point, the case was fully litigated: all the parties either were dismissed or settled. However, the Court retained jurisdiction for the enforcement and interpretation of the settlement. On December 7, 2017, the Court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to interpret the Powell settlement agreement in order to determine the amount of time necessary to complete an evaluation of Powell's net worth and ordered the evaluation be completed by February 6, 2018. On June 6, 2018, the Court granted in part plaintiffs' motion to interpret the Powell settlement agreement, again related to the completion of the net worth evaluation. The Court required that the evaluator provide missing, relevant financial information within twenty-one days. Litigation over the net worth professional fees continued until January, 2019, when they were finally resolved.

On May 25, 2020, the case was reassigned to Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner. He issued an order on April 13, 2020 requiring the parties to file a joint status report apprising the court of which claims had settled and which remained open. The parties filed this report on April 24, 2020, stating that the Mericle, Provider, and Powell settlements had all been completed. The outstanding claims were those that plaintiffs intended to pursue against former Judges Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella for damages associated with existing judgments against the two.

The court ordered plaintiffs to file the appropriate motion to proceed with the remaining claims by June 1, 2020. As of May 27, 2020, the case remains open and ongoing.

Summary Authors

Cade Boland (6/29/2018)

Alex Moody (5/27/2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4373155/parties/wallace-v-powell/


Judge(s)

Caputo, A. Richard (Pennsylvania)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Caroselli, William R (Pennsylvania)

Cefalo, Michael J (Pennsylvania)

DeFrancesco, Richard C (Pennsylvania)

Desai, Neha (Pennsylvania)

Dyller, Barry H. (Pennsylvania)

Fantini, Lauren C (Pennsylvania)

Farmer, Shannon D. (Pennsylvania)

Fazio, Michael A (New Jersey)

Freeman, Richard G. (Pennsylvania)

Judge(s)

Caputo, A. Richard (Pennsylvania)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Caroselli, William R (Pennsylvania)

Cefalo, Michael J (Pennsylvania)

DeFrancesco, Richard C (Pennsylvania)

Desai, Neha (Pennsylvania)

Dyller, Barry H. (Pennsylvania)

Fantini, Lauren C (Pennsylvania)

Farmer, Shannon D. (Pennsylvania)

Fazio, Michael A (New Jersey)

Freeman, Richard G. (Pennsylvania)

Gelb, Johanna L (Pennsylvania)

Hough, Timothy R (Pennsylvania)

Keach, Elmer Robert III (New York)

Keene, Rachel M. (Pennsylvania)

Keller, Emily C. (Pennsylvania)

Kleiner, Daniel E (Pennsylvania)

Levick, Marsha (Pennsylvania)

Levin, Arnold (Pennsylvania)

Melley, Rebecca S. (Pennsylvania)

Montgomery, Bridget E (Pennsylvania)

O'Mullan, Michael P (New Jersey)

Racine, Amber M (Pennsylvania)

Rosado, Lourdes M. (Pennsylvania)

Schertz, David J (Pennsylvania)

Seach, Stephen A (Pennsylvania)

Segal, Daniel (Pennsylvania)

Senoff, David S (Pennsylvania)

Valenziano, Anthony (New Jersey)

Webb, Adrianne Walvoord (Pennsylvania)

Weiss, Sol H (Pennsylvania)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Adelsberger, Donna L. (Pennsylvania)

Andrisani, Nathan J (Pennsylvania)

Bednarek, Nicole F. (Pennsylvania)

Benson, Laura E. (Pennsylvania)

Borland, Kimberley D. (Pennsylvania)

Brenner, Thomas Edward (Pennsylvania)

Brucker, William G. (Pennsylvania)

Caravello, Laura E. (Pennsylvania)

Ciavarella , Mark A Jr. (Pennsylvania)

Dean, John G (Pennsylvania)

Falcone, Samuel A. (Pennsylvania)

Fannick, Demetrius W. (Pennsylvania)

Fay, Joseph B.G. (Pennsylvania)

Flounlacker, John (Pennsylvania)

Gelso, Philip (Pennsylvania)

Gilmartin, Marianne J. (Pennsylvania)

Hogan, Matthew (Pennsylvania)

Huyett, Daniel Henry III (Pennsylvania)

Kraeutler, Eric (Pennsylvania)

Mahoney, Harry G. (Pennsylvania)

McCarroll, Scott D. (Pennsylvania)

McDonough, Suzanne (Pennsylvania)

McNelis, Edward P (Pennsylvania)

Myers, Timothy T (Pennsylvania)

Rhoades, Stephen D (Pennsylvania)

Schneider, Bernard M (Pennsylvania)

Schwartzman, James (Pennsylvania)

Sebelin, Jane S (Pennsylvania)

Simon, Deborah Hart (Pennsylvania)

Sinaiko, Stephen M. (New York)

Stallings, Stephen S. (Pennsylvania)

Steidle, John M. (Pennsylvania)

Swetz, James A. (Pennsylvania)

Tanchyk, Alison (Pennsylvania)

Vipond , Jonathan III (Pennsylvania)

Walsh, Kevin M. (Pennsylvania)

Wieand, Donald E. Jr (Pennsylvania)

Wiener, Susan J. (Pennsylvania)

Williams, A. Taylor (Pennsylvania)

Wishnoff, Howard (Pennsylvania)

Other Attorney(s)

Brobst, Donald H. (Pennsylvania)

Campenni, Thomas J. (Pennsylvania)

Daley, Michael P (Pennsylvania)

Davison, Robert V. (Pennsylvania)

Feldman, Jeffrey S (Pennsylvania)

Kostelansky, Michael R. (Pennsylvania)

Mattern, Harry P. (Pennsylvania)

Menn, Stephen M. (Pennsylvania)

Richman, Jessica L (Pennsylvania)

Sheppard, Mark B (Pennsylvania)

Vinsko, William E. (Pennsylvania)

Yeager, Joseph J. (Pennsylvania)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:09-cv-00286

3:09-cv-00357

Docket [PACER]

H.T. v. Ciavarella

Jan. 9, 2013

Jan. 9, 2013

Docket

3:09-cv-00286

Docket [PACER]

Wallace v. Powell

June 18, 2018

June 18, 2018

Docket
1

3:09-cv-00286

Class Action Complaint

Wallace v. Powell

Feb. 13, 2009

Feb. 13, 2009

Complaint
1

3:09-cv-00357

Complaint-Class Action

H.T. v. Ciavarella

Feb. 26, 2009

Feb. 26, 2009

Complaint
50

3:09-cv-00357

Amended Complaint-Class Action

H.T. v. Ciavarella

April 23, 2009

April 23, 2009

Complaint
336

3:09-cv-00286

3:09-cv-00357

3:09-cv-00291

3:09-cv-00630

Memorandum and Order

Wallace v. Powell

2009 WL 4051974

Nov. 20, 2009

Nov. 20, 2009

Order/Opinion
335

3:09-cv-00286

3:09-cv-00357

Memorandum

Wallace v. Powell

2009 WL 6850318

Nov. 20, 2009

Nov. 20, 2009

Order/Opinion
411

3:09-cv-00286

3:09-cv-00357

Memorandum

Wallace v. Powell

2010 WL 785253

March 1, 2010

March 1, 2010

Order/Opinion
530

3:09-cv-00286

3:09-cv-00357

Memorandum and Order

Wallace v. Powell

2010 WL 2367672

June 9, 2010

June 9, 2010

Order/Opinion
537

3:09-cv-00286

3:09-cv-00357

Memorandum and Order

Wallace v. Powell

2010 WL 2746394

July 9, 2010

July 9, 2010

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4373155/wallace-v-powell/

Last updated Aug. 7, 2022, 3:14 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
542

2 Proposed Order

View on PACER

PACER
543

PACER
544

2 Proposed Stipulated Order with doc. 205 Protective Order

View on PACER

PACER
545

2 Exhibit(s) A - C

View on PACER

3 Proposed Order

View on PACER

PACER
546

PACER
547

PACER
548

PACER
549

PACER
550

PACER
551

PACER
552

PACER
553

PACER
554

PACER
555

PACER
556

PACER
557

PACER
558

PACER
559

PACER
560

PACER
561

PACER
562

PACER
563

PACER
564

PACER
565

PACER
566

PACER
567

PACER
568

PACER
569

PACER
570

PACER
571

PACER
572

PACER
575

PACER
576

PACER
577

2 Proposed Stipulated Order

View on PACER

3 Stipulation for Extension of Time

View on PACER

PACER
578

PACER
579

PACER
580

PACER
581

PACER
582

PACER
583

PACER
584

PACER
585

PACER
586

PACER
587

PACER
588

PACER
589

PACER
590

PACER
591

PACER
592

PACER
593

PACER
594

PACER
595

PACER
596

PACER
597

PACER
598

PACER
599

PACER
600

PACER
601

PACER
602

PACER
603

PACER
604

PACER
605

PACER
606

PACER
607

PACER
608

PACER
609

PACER
610

PACER
611

PACER
612

PACER
613

PACER
614

PACER
615

PACER
616

PACER
617

PACER
618

PACER
619

PACER
620

PACER
621

PACER
622

PACER
623

PACER
624

PACER
625

PACER
626

PACER
627

PACER
628

PACER
629

PACER
630

PACER
631

PACER
632

PACER
633

PACER
634

PACER
635

PACER
636

PACER
637

PACER
638

PACER
639

PACER
640

PACER
641

PACER
642

PACER
643

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Pennsylvania

Case Type(s):

Juvenile Institution

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 13, 2009

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Children who had been adjudicated delinquent, found to have violated their probation and parents of those children

Plaintiff Type(s):

City/County Plaintiff

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Juvenile Law Center

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Robert J. Powell, Private Entity/Person

Michael T. Conahan, Private Entity/Person

PA Child Care, LLC, Private Entity/Person

Mericle Construction, Inc., Private Entity/Person

Luzerne County (Luzerne), County

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Attorneys fees

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Voluntary Dismissal

Conditional Dismissal

Amount Defendant Pays: 25000000

Order Duration: 2012 - None

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Classification / placement

Informed consent/involuntary medication

Juveniles

Over/Unlawful Detention

Parents (visitation, involvement)

Type of Facility:

Government-run

Non-government for profit