Goldberger, Seligsohn & Shinrod, P.a.; Allen S. Goldberger v. Gulf Ins Co

*Honorable David R. Hansen, Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-1291
___________
GOLDBERGER, SELIGSOHN & SHINROD, P.A.;
ALLEN S. GOLDBERGER,
Appellants
v.
GULF INS CO;
TARGET PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATES
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 03-cv-5420)
District Judge: The Honorable Jose L. Linares
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 10, 2007
Before: SMITH, NYGAARD, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.*

-- 1 of 3 --

2
(Filed April 27, 2007 )
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
This cause came to be heard on the record from the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey. Appellants Goldberger, Seligsohn & Shinrod, P.A.,
a New Jersey law firm and Allen S. Goldberger, Esq., a New Jersey attorney, appeal the
District Court’s grant of summary judgment to Appellee Gulf Insurance Company. The
Appellants had sought a declaratory judgment in the District Court that Gulf Insurance
Company owes them coverage under a professional liability policy for a legal malpractice
claim.
After thorough study of the briefs filed by the parties, as well as the record
and transcripts of hearings conducted in the District Court, we will affirm essentially for
the reasons stated by the District Court. The facts and procedural history of this case are
well known to the parties and the court, and it is not necessary that we restate them here.
The reasons why we write an opinion of the court are threefold: to instruct the District
Court, to educate and inform the attorneys and parties, and to explain our decision. We
use a not-precedential opinion in cases such as this, in which a precedential opinion is
rendered unnecessary because the opinion has no institutional or precedential value. See
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Internal Operating Procedure

-- 2 of 3 --

3
(I.O.P.) 5.3. Under the usual circumstances when we affirm by not-precedential opinion
and judgment, we briefly set forth the reasons supporting the court's decision. In this case,
however, we have concluded that neither a full memorandum explanation nor a
precedential opinion is necessary. Judge Linares’ ruling is an excellent statement of his
reasoning and fully supports his order. No further refutation of the appellant's allegations
of error is necessary.
Hence, we believe it wholly unnecessary to further opine, or offer additional
explanations and reasons to those given by the District Court, why we will affirm. It is
sufficient to say that, essentially for the reasons given by the District Court in its opinion
dated the 29th day of December, 2005, we will affirm.
It is now hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Judgment of the
District Court entered on December 29, 2005 be, and the same is hereby AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --