Silverberg v. DuPont De Nemours, Inc.

1

RICHARD J. SILVERBERG v. DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC. ET AL.

RICHARD J. SILVERBERG v. DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC. ET AL.

Civil Action Nos. 23-1868, 24-924

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

April 2, 2024

MEMORANDUM

R BARCLAY SURRICK, J.

This is yet another lawsuit by pro se Plaintiff Richard J Silverberg (“Silverberg” or “Plaintiff”) alleging that state proceedings against him are not legitimate, but are the product of an unlawful conspiracy against him by the City of Philadelphia (the “City”) and various City and Pennsylvania officials and other individuals and entities. Presently before the Court is Silverberg's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Injunction Mot.,” ECF No. 8) asking this Court to enjoin ongoing attorney disciplinary proceedings against him. For the following reasons, Silverberg's Motion will be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Litigation History

1. The Jackson State and Federal Lawsuits

Under the circumstances of this matter, it is appropriate to note at the outset that although Silverberg is pro se, he is an attorney currently admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (the “Disciplinary Board”). (See Petition for Discipline, ECF No. 8-3, at ¶ 2.)^[1]See also Disciplinary Board Public Information for Richard Joseph Silverberg (listing Silverberg's status as an active attorney admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, available at https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-the-public/find-attorney/attorney-detail/48329 (last visited March 29, 2024)). This status apparently has not deterred Silverberg from filing serial federal lawsuits alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., and other federal and state law claims as vehicles to undo or circumvent previous court rulings adverse to claims he has advanced on his client's or his own behalf in matters arising from the same underlying facts.

The federal lawsuits referenced herein arise from two sets of unrelated state court actions filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. The first set involves a lawsuit Silverberg pursued as counsel for Mark Jackson (“Jackson”) alleging invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy claims against Jackson's former employer Rohm & Haas Company (“Rohm & Haas”) and other Rohm & Haas personnel, see Jackson v. Rohm & Haas et al., No. 990601906 (Phila. Cty. Ct. Com. Pl.) (filed June 17, 1999) (“Rohm & Haas State Case”), and a separate but related lawsuit Silverberg filed on Jackson's behalf against a female former Rohm & Haas co-worker. See Jackson v. McCrory, No. 990601906 (Phila. Cty. Ct. Com. Pl.) (filed July 1, 1999) (“McCrory State Case”). On August 31, 2000, the Rohm & Haas State Case and the McCrory State Case were consolidated (the “Consolidated State Cases.”). See McCrory State Case docket, available at https://fjdefile.phila.gov/efsfjd/zkfjdpublicqry03.zpdktrptframes (last visited Mar. 29, 2024). Jackson and his counsel, Silverberg, ultimately did not prevail in these cases, and their appeals were exhausted in 2004. See Jackson v. Rohm & Haas Co. et al., 56 Pa. D. & C. 4th 449, 450 (Phila. Cty. Ct. Com. Pl. 2002), aff'd, No. 1710 EDA 2002 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 31, 2003), reh'g denied (Oct. 1, 2003), appeal denied, No. 540 EAL 2003 (Pa. May 4, 2004).

On September 19, 2003, while the Petition for Allowance of Appeal in the Consolidated State Cases was pending, Silverberg filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Jackson against Rohm & Haas, Rohm & Haas employees, and their state court lawyers, asserting RICO and pendant state law claims. See Jackson v. Rohm & Haas Co. et al., No. 03-5299, 2005 WL 1592910, at *1-3 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2005) (“Jackson I”) (setting forth background of Consolidated State Cases and Jackson I), aff'd, No. 06-1540, 2007 WL 579662 (3d Cir. Feb. 26, 2007). The district court dismissed Jackson's Amended Complaint, finding that he lacked standing to bring RICO claims and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. Id. at *4-5.

On September 19, 2005, Silverberg filed another federal lawsuit alleging that the Jackson I defendants, their Jackson I lawyers, and Rohm & Haas's disability insurance administrator engaged in improper conduct in connection with Jackson I. See Jackson v. Rohm & Haas Co., No. 05-4988, 2006 WL 680933 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2006) (“Jackson II”), aff'd, 366 Fed.Appx. 342 (3d Cir. 2010). The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and for sanctions based on that pleading, Jackson filed an amended complaint, and the court sanctioned Silverberg, finding the complaint's claims under RICO and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 were “unwarranted and frivolous.” Id. at *5-6. Jackson later filed a second amended complaint, five claims of which ultimately survived dismissal. Jackson II, 2007 WL 2702804, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 12, 2007) (denying motion to dismiss two RICO counts and three counts under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002 et seq.).

On August 18, 2006, while Jackson II was pending, Silverberg filed a third federal action, adding claims relating to the termination of Jackson's employment and disability benefits. See Jackson v. Rohm & Haas Co., No. 06-3682, 2007 WL 2668001 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 5, 2007) (“Jackson III”). The court dismissed most of the claims alleged in the original Jackson III complaint. Id. at *14 (dismissing all counts except one ERISA claim and two state-law claims), modified in part, 2007 WL 2702797, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 12, 2007) (dismissing the two statelaw claims as to defendant Liberty Life). The court later consolidated Jackson II and III and ordered plaintiff to file a consolidated amended complaint, which must “alleg[e] all claims for which he has a good faith basis” and “must be concise and . . . comply with all federal and local rules.” See Jackson III, at ECF No. 93 (E.D. Pa. May 22, 2008). On March 19, 2009, the court ordered 21 of 25 claims asserted in the 152-page consolidated amended complaint dismissed with prejudice “as a sanction for, inter alia, [plaintiff's] continuing failure to file a properly-pleaded complaint and his chronic obstinacy regarding the court's orders and decisions.” Jackson II, 2009 WL 773936, at *1-2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2009), aff'd, 366 Fed.Appx. 342 (3d Cir. 2010).

2. The Tax and PUFTA Cases and Silverberg I and Silverberg II

The second set of state court actions were brought by the City against Silverberg and businesses with which he was affiliated. The City filed the first action to collect unpaid business privilege and wage taxes owed by Silverberg and his former law firm for the period of 1992 through 2004. See City of Philadelphia v. Richard J. Silverberg & Associates, P.C. et al., No. 080301510 (Phila. Cty. Ct. Com. Pl.) (the “Tax Case”).

On June 20, 2019, Silverberg filed suit in this Court alleging that the City, its employees, and others engaged in unlawful tax collection practices in violation of various state and federal laws. See Silverberg v. City of Philadelphia, No. 19-2691, 2020 WL 108619, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2020) (“Silverberg I”), aff'd, 847 F. Appx 152 (3d Cir. 2021). The complaint asserted claims under RICO, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state law. Silverberg also filed a motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction, which the Court denied after holding a hearing. Silverberg I, 2019 WL 4059015, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2019). Silverberg subsequently filed an amended complaint and a second motion for a TRO, and defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. (See Silverberg I, at ECF Nos. 19, 23, 27, 33.) On January 8, 2020, we dismissed Silverberg's amended complaint based on the Rooker-Feldman and Younger doctrines and principles of comity. Silverberg I, 2020 WL 108619, at 5-7.

The second case by the City alleged that Silverberg and ELS Realco, LLC (“ELS”) violated the Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act, 12 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5101 et seq., when ELS purchased a property in December 2011 so that Silverberg could avoid paying the $310,586.53 default judgment entered against him in the Tax Case. See City of Philadelphia v. Richard J. Silverberg et al., No. 190903805 (Phila. Cty. Ct. Com. Pl.) (the “PUFTA Case”).

On October 12, 2029, Silverberg filed a second federal lawsuit against the City; Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Joshua H. Roberts; the William Penn Foundation, a non-profit charitable organization; and various City officials. Silverberg et al. v. City of Philadelphia et al., No. 20-5034, at ECF Nos. 1 (Compl.), 14 (Am. Compl.) (E.D. Pa.) (“Silverberg II”). Silverberg again alleged claims under RICO, § 1983, and state law. Both Silverberg I and Silverberg II were essentially premised on the theory that the Tax and PUFTA Cases were not legitimate, but were improper schemes to make up for insufficient revenue produced by the City beverage tax and to fund City Initiatives. Defendants moved for Rule 11 sanctions within days of Silverberg's filing of the amended complaint, and Silverberg voluntarily dismissed the case one day after the deadline to respond to the motion for sanctions. Id. at ECF Nos. 17, 30.

B. The Disciplinary Proceedings

By letter dated March 24, 2022, the Disciplinary Board's Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) sent Silverberg an ODC Form DB-7 (Request for Statement of Respondent's Position) (“DB-7”) notifying him that he was the subject of disciplinary proceedings commenced after the ODC received complaints indicating that Silverberg's conduct may have violated the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct (the ...