Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-30-2007
Lai v. Garrubbo Capece
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1529
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Lai v. Garrubbo Capece" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 517.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/517
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
NO. 07-1529
________________
KATHERINE LAI,
Appellant
v.
GARRUBBO, CAPECE, D’ARCANGELO, MILLMAN & SMITH, P.C.;
LAURIE ESTEVES; SHARP & BROWN LLP; JULIA KLUBENSPIES;
MCDONOUGH, KORN & EICHHORN
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-03388)
District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 28, 2007
BEFORE: FISHER, ALDISERT and WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed August 30, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Pro se Appellant Katherine Lai appeals from a District Court order
dismissing her complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
1
12(b)(6), and denying her request for an entry of default against certain Defendants. We
will affirm.
I.
According to the complaint, Lai alleged that she received a burn in the
shape of the letter “L” during a surgical procedure in 2003. Lai filed a state court
complaint asserting, among other claims, sexual assault, harassment and medical
malpractice against her doctor and nurse staff as well as the St. Barnabas Medical Center.
In July 2006, Lai filed the federal complaint giving rise to this appeal. In
her complaint, Lai asserted claims against the attorneys and law firms that represented the
defendants in the state court action. She asserted three claims in her complaint: (1) two
claims pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a - 2000h; and (2) one
claim pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 -
12213. The District Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), and denied her request for an entry of default. Next, the District
Court denied Lai’s timely motion for reconsideration on January 24, 2007, and again
dismissed the complaint. Subsequently, Lai timely filed a notice of appeal.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our standard of review
over the District Court’s dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is
plenary. See Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996). “Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
2
pleader is entitled to relief.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964
(2007)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In determining whether Lai
has stated a claim, we must accept her factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable
inferences from them in her favor. See Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 233 (3d Cir.
2004).
III.
For essentially the reasons given by the District Court, we agree with its
order dismissing the complaint and denying Lai’s request for an entry of default.
Specifically, Lai’s allegations that the Defendants violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the ADA during the defense of their clients in the state court proceedings failed to
state a claim under either of these statutes. Additionally, no default was ever entered by
the clerk, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), and we note that default judgments are disfavored as
decisions on the merits are encouraged. See Harad v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 839 F.2d
979, 982 (3d Cir. 1988). The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
3