Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Virginia Kurschinske v. Meadville Forging Company

June 10, 2011

VIRGINIA KURSCHINSKE,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MEADVILLE FORGING COMPANY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: McLAUGHLIN, Sean J., District Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently pending before the Court are the following motions filed by Plaintiff, Virginia Kurschinske ("Kurschinske")*fn1

(1) Motion for Interest and Costs [ECF No. 101];

(2) Motion to Nullify the January 19, 2011 Court Order [ECF No. 102]; and

(3) "Motion [for] Court to Warrant Criminal Charges" [ECF No. 108].*fn2

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL

BACKGROUND

The facts and procedural background of the case are set forth in detail in the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 19, 2011 and are incorporated herein. [ECF No. 94]. Briefly, on January 28, 2008, following a jury trial on Kurschinske's gender discrimination claim pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 2000c et seq. and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 951 et seq., a judgment was entered in favor of Kurschinske in the amount of $25,000.00 ("Judgment 1"). [ECF No. 53]. Defendant, Meadville Forging Company ("Meadville Forging") paid Kurschinske $25,000.00 on June 27, 2008. On September 30, 2008, this Court awarded attorney's fees and costs in favor of Kurschinske and against Meadville Forging in the amount of $46,763.21 ("Judgment 2"). [ECF No. 63].

On December 2, 2008, Susan Mahood ("Mahood"), Kurschinske's counsel, filed a Petition for Equitable Charging Lien, requesting that this Court impose an equitable charging lien in her favor and order payment of Judgment 2 to her. [ECF No. 65]. A telephonic argument on the Petition was held on January 6, 2009. Mahood contended that she was entitled to the full amount of Judgment 2, i.e., $46,763.21. Kurschinske, on the other hand, argued that Mahood was entitled to a lesser percentage of the fee based upon an alleged contractual agreement with Mahood. At the conclusion of the argument, I dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction. See [ECF No. 93], Tr. of Argument pp. 5-7.

On March 23, 2009, Mahood filed a lawsuit against Kurschinske and Meadville Forging in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, at No. GD 09-4046 (the "state court action"). In this lawsuit, Mahood sought payment of Judgment 2 in the amount of $46,763.21 for work performed by her in the federal gender discrimination case. [ECF No. 74], Def. Ex. B. On July 17, 2009, Mahood entered a default judgment against Meadville Forging in the amount of $46,763.21. On August 25, 2009, Meadville Forging forwarded Mahood a check in that amount which was cashed by her on September 2, 2009. [ECF No. 74], Def. Ex. E.

Kurschinske, through counsel, filed an Amended Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim in the state court action, and alleged, inter alia, that she was entitled to $16,094.53 of the attorney's fee award based upon an alleged contract between herself and Mahood. [ECF No. 74], Def. Ex. C. Following argument on Mahood's preliminary objections to Kurschinske's Counterclaim, the state court granted the preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer by Order dated October 9, 2009 and dismissed Kurschinske's Counterclaim with prejudice. [ECF No. 74], Def. Ex. D. On June 29, 2010, Mahood discontinued the state court action.

On October 5, 2010, Kurschinske filed a Praecipe for Writ of Execution in this Court requesting a Writ of Execution be issued against Meadville Forging [ECF No. 71], and a Writ of Execution was issued by the Deputy Clerk. On October 19, 2010 Meadville Forging filed an Emergency Motion to Strike the Writ of Execution and Deem Judgments Satisfied. [ECF No. 74]. Following a hearing held on December 20, 2010, Meadville Forging's Motion was granted by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 19, 2011. [ECF No. 94]. In so doing, I concluded that Judgment 1 had been satisfied based upon Meadville Forging's payment of $25,000.00 to Kurschinske on June 27, 2008, and further ordered Meadville Forging to calculate post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) from January 28, 2008 to June 26, 2008 and issue Kurschinske a draft in the amount of that interest within ten (10) days of the Order. [ECF No. 94, p. 4]. In addition, I held that Kurschinske was collaterally stopped from prosecuting her claim for a portion of the attorneys fees in this case by attempting to execute on Judgment 2 [ECF No. 94, pp. 9-10], and that Judgment 2 had been satisfied as a result of Meadville Forging's payment of $46,763.21 to Mahood. [ECF No. 94, pp. 4-10].

On January 25, 2011, Kurschinske filed a Motion to Reconsider and Motion to Vacate the Court's Order dated January 19, 2011. [ECF. No. 95]. Kurschinske argued that the default judgment entered against Meadville Forging in the state court action should not collaterally estop her from executing on Judgment 2. Meadville Forging filed a response to Kurschinske's Motion and Kurschinkse filed a reply. [ECF No. 98 and ECF No. 100]. On February 25, 2011, Kurschinske's motion was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.