Trial Court Opines That Defendant's Appeal From Order Dismissing Defendant's Objections to Jurisdiction Should Be Quashed

In the case Galette v. New Jersey Transit, No. 200800610 (C.P. Phila. Co. May 31, 2022 Crumlish, J.), the trial court filed a Rule 1925 Opinion to the appellate court recommending the dismissal of the Defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s Order dismissing the Defendant’s objections to jurisdiction.

It was the position of the trial court that the Order dismissing the Defendant’s objection to jurisdiction was appealable only under Pa.R.A.P. 311(b) and that the requirements of that Rule had not been met. 

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a personal injury action filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant New Jersey Transit, and another Defendant. According to the lawsuit, the Plaintiff was injured while sitting in a parked vehicle in the City of Philadelphia when that vehicle was allegedly struck by a bus operated by one of NJ Transit’s employees.

The Defendant, NJ Transit, objected to the court’s jurisdiction over it through a Motion to Dismiss. That Motion was denied and NJ Transit filed an appeal, which prompted this Opinion by the court.

The trial court noted that an Order denying a Motion to Dismiss is ordinarily interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable unless expressly made so by statute.

In its Opinion, the court cited to Pa.R.A.P. 311, which lists the interlocutory appeals that may be taken as a right, and Pa.R.A.P. 312, which allows for interlocutory appeals by permission.

Under Pa. R.A.P. 311(b), an appeal is allowed as a right when a trial court’s Order overruled Preliminary Objections to the trial court’s in personam or in rem jurisdiction and either the Plaintiff elected to treat the Order as final or the trial court stated in the Order that a substantial issue of jurisdiction existed.

Given that these requirements were not met, and given that the Defendant, NJ Transit, did not otherwise seek leave of court to file an interlocutory appeal, or request an Order stating that a substantial issue of jurisdiction was presented, the trial court noted that the appeal should be quashed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (June 7, 2022).

Trial Court Says Appeal Should Be Quashed Because Party Did Not File Post-Trial Motions

In the case of Hernandez v. Grandview Hospital, No. 2018-CV-01736 (Bucks Co. Nov. 15, 2021 Mellon, J.), the court issued a Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion in support of its decision granting a nonsuit in a medical malpractice case.

Of note, the trial court ruled that the Plaintiff’s appeal should be quashed because the Plaintiff took an appeal from the nonsuit entered in favor of the Defendant and did not first file any written Post-Trial Motions pursuant to the requirements of Pa. R.C.P. 227.1.  As such, the trial court requested that the appellate court quash this appeal.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 4, 2022).

Soure of image:  Photo by Gabriel Soto on www.unsplash.com.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Quashes Appeal on Discovery Dispute Over Claim of Privilege as Premature

In the case of Fisher v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 1597 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super. June 25, 2021)(en banc), the court addressed discovery issues in terms of whether a trial court impermissibly ordered the production of claims file materials from the carrier to the court for an in camera inspection where the carrier was asserting that the materials at issue were protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.

Following a review of the matter, the court ended up quashing the appeal on the basis of the Collateral Order Rule.

This Opinion contains a nice summary of the current status of the Collateral Order Rule in Pennsylvania.

With respect to this particular case, the court noted that, when a discovery request has been made that, on its face, seeks protected materials, and the responding party clearly sets forth facts that leave no doubt as to the applicability of any privilege, an in camera review is not permitted and doing so would violate the privilege.

Where, however, a discovery request is made and the assertion of a privilege by the responding party and/or the proofs offered by the requesting party render a trial court unable to determine and issue a privilege, an in camera examination is appropriate and fully supported by the case law.

The Superior Court noted that this approach strikes an appropriate balance between preserving privilege and protecting a requesting party’s right to discoverable material.

In this matter, the court concluded that the discovery requests made, and the responding party’s responses and objections made thereto, did not provide the trial court with enough information to decide whether any of the requested documents were indeed subjected to a privilege. As such, the Superior Court ruled that the trial court had appropriately ordered an in camera inspection of the documents.

The court emphasized in its opinion that the issue before it involved a trial court Order directing a party to produce documents for an in-camera review and not any Order requiring the production of documents to the party that requested the discovery. It was emphasized that, since it was concluded in this matter that an in camera inspection is appropriate, the responding party had not lost its right to further contest the order production of any claim materials if so ordered by the trial court after the in camera inspection is completed, but before production of the opposing party. In other words, the Superior Court confirmed that, if the trial court ordered the production of the documents after the in camera review the documents, the responding party still retained the right to attempt to appeal that decision.

For full disclosure purposes, I note that I wrote the Amicus Curiae Brief on behalf of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute in this matter.

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

Trial Court Rules that Appellate Issues Waived

In the case of U-Save Auto Rental of Lansdale, Inc. v. Highline Auto. Group, No. 2016-CV-06620  (C.P. Montg. Co. April 23, 2019 Rogers, J.), the trial court wrote a Rule 1925 Opinion for the appellate court asserting that the trial court’s decision that the Defendant had waived all issues on appeal should be upheld.  

This matter arose out of a breach of contract case involving a business consultation contract.   

In this matter, the Defendant failed to file a post-trial motion after a bench trial.   The court noted that the failure to file a post-trial motion under Pa.R.C.P. 227.1 generally resulted in a waiver of all issues on appeal.  

The trial court additionally noted that the Defendant failed to file a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal in a timely fashion.   The court noted that, absent any applicable exception to the general rule, the failure to comply with the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), pertaining to the requirement to file Concise Statement of Errors on Appeal when ordered to do so by the court also resulted in an automatic waiver of all issues on appeal.  

In its Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court urged the appellate court to quash the Defendants’ appeal.  

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

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (May 21, 2019). 

Appeal Quashed Where Summary Judgment Entered In Favor of Less Than All Defendants

In the case of Massaro v. Tincher Constr., 2019 Pa. Super 44 (Pa. Super. Feb. 19, 2019 Bender, P.J.E., Nichols, J., Stevens, P.J.E.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the propriety of an appeal from an Order entering summary judgment for less than all of the Defendants.  

The court ruled that an appeal from an Order entering summary judgment for one (1) Defendant but not other Defendants was not immediately appealable under the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.   The court also noted that, since no request for permission to appeal had been submitted to either the trial court or the appellate court, the appeal from the summary judgment order was quashed.  

The Majority Opinion of the Superior Court by Judge Nichols can be viewed HERE.

The Dissenting Opinion by President Judge Emeritus Bender can be viewed HERE.

 

Source:  “Court Summaries” by Timothy L. Clawges Pennsylvania Bar News (March 18, 2019).  

Appeal of Denial of Motion to Disqualify a Court Appointed Neutral Quashed

In the case of Haviland v. Kline & Specter, No. 1791 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. March 22, 2018 Murray, J., McLaughlin, J., and Stevens, J.) (Op. by Murray, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the rules of pertaining to permissible appeals from the trial court. In this particular case, the question was whether a trial court’s denial of a motion to disqualify a court appointed neutral arbitrator was appealable.   The court ruled that it was not and, therefore, he appeal was quashed.  

This matter arose out of a dispute between law firms over fees.   In the trial court proceedings, the court appointed a neutral arbitrator to hear the matter.   One of the parties involved filed a motion to disqualify that arbitrator.   After the trial court denied the motion to disqualify the neutral arbitrator, the case was appealed.  

A main portion of this court’s Opinion dealt with whether the trial court’s denial of the motion to disqualify the arbitrator was appealable as a non-final order.   In this regard, the Superior Court stated that it was unable to locate any case directly on point. However, the court concluded that the case law addressing the interlocutory nature of pre-trial recusals of trial court judges to be persuasive and instructive.  

The court held that “an order denying a motion seeking the recusal or disqualification of an arbitrator, as with an order denying the recusal of a trial judge, is not a final order or an interlocutory order appealable as of right or as a collateral order.  

Given that the Superior Court found that the trial court’s Order denying a party’s motion to disqualify an arbitrator is not a final order or an interlocutory order appealable as of right or as a collateral order, the Superior Court quashed this appeal as it, therefore, did not have jurisdiction to the merits of the issue presented. 

Anyone wishing to read this case may click this LINK.