JOSEPH KLEMENTS; JANICE KLEMENTS, his wife v. Cecil Township

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 09-3213
________________
JOSEPH KLEMENTS; JANICE KLEMENTS, his wife,
Appellants
v.
CECIL TOWNSHIP; LILLIAN VERES; KEVIN CAMERON; PHYLLIS
ZACCARINO; THOMAS A. CASCIOLA; MIKE DEBBIS, individually and in their
capacity as the Cecil Township Supervisors; CHIEF JOHN T. PUSHAK, individually
and in his capacity as the Cecil Township Police Chief
________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 2-06-cv-00464)
District Judge: The Honorable Gary L. Lancaster
_______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 21, 2010
BEFORE: HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: November 30, 2010)
_______________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_______________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
I.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appellants Joseph and Janice Klements filed an action against Cecil Township,
Pennsylvania and various Township officials alleging that the Appellees violated their
civil rights by removing various vehicles from their property. The District Court granted
summary judgment in favor of all defendants. We will affirm, essentially for the reasons
contained in the District Court’s memorandum opinion. See Klements v. Cecil Township
et al., 2009 WL 1850819 (W.D. Pa. Jun. 26, 2009).
In Appellants’ complaint, much of which tracks, verbatim, the allegations of a
2003 state court case complaint, they allege that the Township violated their civil rights
by removing vehicles from their property without prior inspection of work orders. They
sought relief for the constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, and also assert
state law causes of action sounding in invasion of privacy, trespass, and “intentional
interference with economic opportunities.” They sought money damages and “injunctive
relief to halt further summary tows without a prior inspection, specific notice of violation,
opportunity to cure and/or meaningful hearing before a neutral judicial officer if violation
is disputed.”
In July of 2006, the District Court stayed the matter on the basis of the pendency
of a parallel state action, pursuant to Colorado River abstention. See Colorado River
Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 818-20 (1976). The District
Court directed the parties to file joint status reports every six months to advise the court
as to the status of the state court action.
The District Court granted the Township’s motion for summary judgment,
determining that, while complicated by the fact that there are two relevant and final state

-- 2 of 3 --

3
court judgments (a consent decree entered by the Washington County Court of Common
Pleas and a 2006 judgment entered by that same court against the Appellants in the 2003
civil complaint they filed against the Township), the parties’ factual allegations and
money damages sought were identical in the federal and state complaints filed by the
Appellants. The District Court found claim preclusion applicable and granted the
Township’s motion for summary judgment.
II.
Claim preclusion bars the litigation of claims that either have been litigated or
should have been raised in an earlier suit. See, e.g., Venuto v. Witco Corp., 117 F.3d 754,
758 n.5 (3d Cir. 1997). The Appellants are pursuing the same civil rights claims that
they brought in Pennsylvania state court. It is clear that these claims have been fully
litigated in Pennsylvania, and the District Court correctly found that claim preclusion
prevents relitigating these claims in federal court.
Our review of the facts and the applicable law satisfies us that the District Court’s
grant of summary judgment on the Appellants’ claims was mandated by the applicable
law. The judgment of the District Court here was correct for the reasons thoroughly
explained in its Memorandum and Opinion. Accordingly, for essentially the same
reasons set forth by the District Court, the judgment appealed in this case will be, in all
respects, affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --