Court Issues Sanctions When Defense Discloses 600 Pages of Documents on the Eve of Trial

In the case of McCready v. Re/Max Achievers, No. 2:24-CV-02226-JFM (E.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2025 Murphy, J.), the court addressed a Motion for discovery sanctions against a defense counsel due to the defense counsel’s failure to produce discoverable documentation during the discovery phase of the case. Defense counsel produced 600 pages of the previously undisclosed documentation at issue days before the trial date.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants after he was allegedly placed at an allegedly unlicensed sober home, which allegedly improperly administered his medication, allegedly leading the Plaintiff to suffer a near fatal state of low blood pressure. The Plaintiff also claimed that he was wrongfully evicted from the facility. He sued various Defendants before settling with Re/Max, which was a property manager for the home.

While the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant at issue should be sanctioned with a default judgment for its late disclosure of relevant evidence, after reviewing the standards applicable to discovery sanctions, the court concluded that an alternative sanction would suffice.

The court awarded attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with the discovery issues. The court also prohibited the Defendant from asserting that any negligence found was attributable to parties who had already settled out of the case. The court additionally permitted the Plaintiff to utilize the late-produced documents at trial, but prohibited the culpable Defendant from doing so.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: Article: “Marshall Dennehey, Re/Max Sanctioned For Delayed Discovery Disclosures Ahead of Trial,” By Riley Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (Dec. 10, 2025).

Court Rejects Allegations of Fraud Relative to Opposing Counsel Allegedly Meeting Ex Parte With Arbitrator During Lunch Break

In the case of Shannon v. Weis Markets, Inc., No. 1604 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Sept. 16, 2025 Panella, P.J.E., Lane, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Lane, J.), the Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s Order denying a Plaintiff’s Petition to vacate or set aside an Arbitration Award in favor of the Defendant under 42 Pa. C.S. A §7341.

According to the Opinion, this negligence action arose out of a slip and fall in a supermarket. 

After the completion of discovery, the parties agreed to submit the matter to binding Arbitration pursuant to a binding high/low Arbitration pursuant to a written agreement. 

After the Arbitration was completed, the arbitrator determined that the store was not negligent. Consistent with the high/low agreement, the arbitrator entered an award in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $75,000.00, which was the low parameter of the high/low agreement. 

Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a Petition to Vacate or Set Aside the Arbitration Award. The Plaintiff asserted that the arbitrator, Weis’s counsel and a Weis’s corporate representative met privately during a lunch break without the Plaintiff or her counsel present, thereby creating an appearance of “fraud, misconduct, corruption, or other irregularity” resulting in an outcome that was “unjust, inequitable, or unconscionable.”

The trial court denied the Petition and, with this decision, the Superior Court affirmed the denial.

In its Opinion, the Superior Court reaffirmed high burden set by the scope of review relative to an arbitration award.   

In addition to confirming that the Plaintiff never made an inquiry about the alleged meeting and never produced facts to suggest that the arbitrator’s award was influenced by the alleged meeting, the Superior Court held that the mere appearance of impropriety arising from an alleged ex parte contact between an arbitrator and one party’s counsel’s representative, without clear, precise, and indubitable evidence of misconduct or resulting prejudice, is insufficient to support the vacation of a common law Arbitration Award under §7341.

The court additionally noted that the award itself was not inequitable since the Plaintiff received $75,000.00 under the high/low agreement even though the arbitrator found that the store was not negligent.

The Superior Court otherwise found that the Plaintiff had waived the argument that the trial court had abused its discretion by not developing a factual record before entering its decision denying the Petition to Vacate. The appellate court noted that the trial court’s local rules allowed the trial court the discretion to determine whether to issue a Rule to Show Cause based upon the sufficiency of the allegations. The appellate court noted that, since the Plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient, the record did not need further development for a proper decision.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 30, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Rebrand Cities on www.pexels.com.

Effort To Dismiss Case Due To Service of Process Issues Fails Procedurally and Substantively

In the case of Howey v. O’Leary, No. 2024-CV-5227 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Dec. 15, 2025 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas denied a Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based upon service of process issues. According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant resided at a certain address. The Sheriff’s Department served the Complaint on the Defendant’s father at the address pled in the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Thereafter, the Defendant did not file any Preliminary Objections asserting improper service of a Complaint. Nor did the Defendant file a responsive pleading raising the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense under Pa. R.C.P. 1030(a).

Rather, before the pleadings were closed, the Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the pleadings in which she asserted that she did not reside at the address pled in the Complaint when the Complaint was served.

In response, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s address was identified on the Defendant’s driver’s license, vehicle registration, and insurance paperwork as being the correct address. 

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas

In addresssing the matter before him, Judge Nealon initially noted that Pennsylvania law requires that any alleged defects in service of process must be raised by way of Preliminary Objections. The court additionally noted that a party who fails to object to service of process by way of Preliminary Objections waives the issue. As such, the court found that the Defendant waived the issues regarding service of process by proceeding with a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Judge Nealon went on to note that, even if the Defendant’s claim of a failure to complete proper service of process was considered, the defense's request for relief would be denied in any event.

First of all, the court noted that the pleadings were not closed and, as such, the filing of a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was improper. 

The court additionally noted that the Defendant failed to satisfy the standard of review of showing that there were no disputed issues of fact and that the Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Here, there was as dispute between the parties as to where the Defendant resided.

For all of these reasons, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and directed that the Defendant file a responsive pleading to the Complaint.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Superior Court Affirms Trial Court's Dismissal of Lawsuit on Service of Process Grounds

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Vargas v. United Modular Enterprises, No. 396 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Nov. 13, 2025 McLauglin, J., Murray, J., and Ford Elliot, P.J.E.,) (Op. by McLauglin, J.) (unpublished), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s sustaining of Preliminary Objections after finding that the trial court properly dismissed Complaint as time barred under Lamp v. Heyman service of process grounds.

According to the record before the court, the Plaintiff did not make any attempts at service until about five (5) months after the statute of limitations had run. The court reaffirmed the rule of law that a Defendant’s notice of the action does not matter in the absence of any attempt at service of process. In other words, the court reaffirmed that notice of the lawsuit on the part of the Defendant does not excuse the failure to complete proper service of process.

The court additionally noted that the Plaintiff’s successful motion for alternative service did not conflict with the subsequent granting of the trial court of the Lamp v. Heyman Preliminary Objections for purposes of the coordinate jurisdiction rule given that the Motions at issue differed in kind.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Nihar Manzalli on www.pexels.com.