Font Size: 
Former Judge Strikes Out in Abuse of Process Suit Against Firm
Attorneys in case call arbitrator's claim 'unprecedented'
The Legal Intelligencer
May 13, 2008
A former federal magistrate judge who now works as a private arbitrator has lost his suit against Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young and one of its partners for allegedly abusing the civil process by lodging false accusations in court papers in an effort to have him disqualified from handling an arbitration.
Because the plaintiff, Edwin E. Naythons, is a former U.S. magistrate judge on the Eastern District of Pennsylvania bench, the case was specially assigned to an outside judge, U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb of the District of New Jersey.
Bumb rejected the theory of Naythons' case, ruling that an arbitrator has no standing to pursue an abuse of process claim against litigants for seeking the arbitrator's disqualification -- even if the motion included false charges -- because the arbitrator is not a party to the litigation.
A ruling in Naythons' favor, Bumb said, could jeopardize the long-standing doctrine of judicial privilege, which protects judges and lawyers from being sued over the content of their speech in court proceedings.
"In this court's view, were plaintiff allowed to proceed in his claim for abuse of process, the effect would be a circumvention of the doctrine of judicial privilege and, ultimately, a chilling of zealous advocacy," Bumb wrote in her 24-page opinion in Naythons v. Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young.
The ruling is a victory for attorneys Joseph C. Crawford and Andrea Toy Ohta of Pepper Hamilton who defended Stradley Ronon and its partner, Andre Dennis.
In court papers, Crawford and Ohta argued that Naythons' suit was "unprecedented" and that the case should be tossed out because "as a matter of law, an arbitrator cannot maintain a claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings or abuse of process against a party's counsel who merely pursues statutory avenues of judicial review seeking to overturn the arbitrator's decision."
Naythons' lawyers, George Bochetto and David P. Heim of Bochetto & Lentz, could not be reached for comment.
According to court papers, the dispute between Naythons and Stradley Ronon stemmed from an ugly court battle over the control and finances of the Philadelphia-based Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith.
In that case, church member Anthony Patterson filed suit against Bishop Kenneth Shelton alleging that he and church leaders had looted the church's bank accounts and stolen millions of dollars.
After fighting in court for more than a decade, both sides agreed to submit the case to private, binding arbitration, with each side choosing three arbitrators and a seventh, neutral arbitrator presiding over the proceedings.
Naythons was chosen as the neutral arbitrator, according to court papers, and the agreement also said Naythons would serve as the ultimate decision maker if a majority decision could not be reached by the six-member panel.
The suit alleged that in his ruling, Naythons found against the church leaders and called for an accounting of the removed funds, and that he was poised to issue his final adjudication when lawyers notified Naythons of an anonymous death threat against him.
In his suit against Stradley Ronon, Naythons claims that all of the lawyers were aware at the time of the death threat that he had already completed writing his final decision, and that he delayed filing it only because he had been asked to recuse himself and needed to rule on that issue first.
Naythons claims in the suit that he later refused to recuse himself, and issued his final adjudication. The ruling was made public on Oct. 3, 2006, but Naythons claims he had dated it July 25, 2006 -- the date he had originally written it.
In his suit, Naythons claims that Dennis and Stradley Ronon later falsely accused him of "backdating" his ruling to avoid the issue of bias by making it appear that he had filed his ruling prior to the death threat.
In her opinion dismissing the suit, Bumb focused almost entirely on a threshold question -- whether Naythons had legal standing to bring such claims.
Bumb said that in a recent oral argument, Naythons' lawyers "candidly acknowledged" there were no cases that squarely and directly supported their position that an arbitrator has standing to bring a claim for abuse of process.
"In fact, counsel urged this court to be 'the first' to allow arbitrators whose reputations have been besmirched by unfounded allegations of fraud and misconduct the opportunity for vindication," Bumb wrote.
Bochetto and Heim argued that Naythons is barred from bringing a defamation claim because of the doctrine of judicial privilege, and therefore had no alternative but to sue for abuse of process and wrongful use of civil proceedings.
But Bumb declined the invitation, saying she was unwilling "to expand the abuse of process claim to reach the plaintiff here."
Naythons' claims, Bumb found, were premised on a theory that failed to account for the system of judicial review, which "is designed, in part, to serve as a means of protection for arbitrators and judges alike."
On appeal, Bumb said, if the courts find that Stradley Ronon and Dennis "did indeed overstep their bounds by making baseless allegations of fraud and misconduct," Bumb said, Naythons would "likely be vindicated."
No court has ever ruled on whether Naythons should be disqualified. But Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge John Herron ruled that Naythons had no standing to file a response to the disqualification motion and therefore struck Naythons' filing.
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court late last year vacated all of Naythons' decisions stemming from the church arbitration after finding that he had exceeded the scope of his mandate as arbitrator by addressing additional issues. But the intermediate appellate court made no rulings on whether the case should be sent back to Naythons or instead to a different arbitrator, leaving those questions to be decided on remand by the common pleas court.
