Ralph Brooks, Jr. on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Wachovia Bank, Na

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-4026
RALPH BROOKS, JR.
ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
Appellant
v.
WACHOVIA BANK, NA; WACHOVIA CORPORATION;
EVERGREEN INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC.;
EVERGREEN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC;
EVERGREEN DISTRIBUTORS, INC.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D. C. No. 06-cv-00955)
District Judge: Hon. James T. Giles
Argued on February 5, 2009
Before: RENDELL and ROTH, Circuit Judges
HAYDEN*, District Judge
*Honorable Katharine S. Hayden, United States District Judge for the District of New
Jersey, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
(Opinion filed: February 18, 2009)
Ann Miller, Esquire (Argued)
Ann Miller, LLC
834 Chestnut Street, Suite 206
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Richard D. Greenfield, Esquire
Greenfield & Goodman
780 Third Avenue, 48 Floorth
New York, NY 10017
Counsel for Appellant
Donna M. Doblick, Esquire (Argued)
Mary J. Hackett, Esquire
Gregory B. Jordan, Esquire
Reed Smith, LLP
435 Sixth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Counsel for Appellee
O P I N I O N
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
This case centers on the preclusive effect of a 2003 settlement between defendant
Wachovia Bank and the Parsky plaintiffs, a class of fund beneficiaries that included instant
plaintiff Ralph Brooks. See Parsky v. Wachovia Bank, Feb. 2000 Term, No. 000771 (Phila.
County Ct. Com. Pl.). The District Court dismissed Brooks’s class action claims, finding

-- 2 of 3 --

3
them barred by the broad release executed in Parsky. On appeal, Brooks argues that the
District Court misrepresented the allegations in his complaint, took too broad a view of the
Parsky release, and engaged in improper factfinding. Brooks also challenges the adequacy
of the notice he received concerning the Parsky release.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964, 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1291. We have carefully considered the appellate briefs of the parties and the record,
including the very thorough memorandum opinion of the District Court. For essentially the
reasons stated by the District Court, we will affirm its September 14, 2007, dismissal of
Brooks’s claims.

-- 3 of 3 --