ANTHONY BIDDLE CONTRACTORS, INC. v. Preet Allied American Street, LP, 28 A.3d 916

Biddle contracted to perform excavation and concrete work for a Philadelphia condominium project; settlement in 2008 required Preet to convey Unit 5C to Biddle and provide a $100,000 credit, with an accompanying sale agreement and promissory note.
Abington Savings Bank held a mortgage lien on the condominium property to secure Preet's loan; Biddle sought specific performance when Preet failed to close.
Preet defaulted on its loan, Abington obtained a judgment by confession in 2009, and a sheriff's sale occurred; ASL later purchased the entire property including Unit 5C.
Biddle joined Abington and ASL as defendants in November 2009, case management order set a discovery deadline of April 5, 2010, and Abington/ASL answered March 1, 2010.
Biddle sought an extraordinary extension of discovery (April 13, 2010 motion); the trial court denied it; Abington/ASL moved for summary judgment, which the court granted on September 22, 2010; final judgment entered October 26, 2010; Biddle appealed.
Biddle argues the court abused its discretion denying extension, leading to premature summary judgment and preventing necessary discovery, necessitating remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse its discretion denying extraordinary relief to extend discovery?	Biddle contends the court penalized it for minor nonprejudicial delay and should have extended discovery to complete relevant evidence.	Abington/ASL argue timely compliance with case management and no prejudice justify denial of extension.	Yes; denial was an abuse of discretion.
Was summary judgment premature because discovery was incomplete due to denial of extension?	Biddle asserts discovery was necessary to prove agreements and promises central to claims, which would preclude summary judgment.	Abington/ASL maintain discovery was complete enough to adjudicate; party bears burden to show genuine issues with evidence.	Yes; improper prior to full discovery.
Should the discovery deadline denial be treated as a discovery sanction requiring Croydon Plastics analysis?	denial functioned as a sanction terminating the action; factors demand balancing prejudice and necessity of extension.	No formal sanction under Rule 4019; standard review of discovery sanctions applies but facts justify denial.	Yes; denial functioned as a discovery sanction that was inappropriate given the minor violation.

Lockley v. CSX Transp. Inc., 5 A.3d 383 (Pa. Super. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for discovery orders)
Gerrow v. John Royle & Sons, 813 A.2d 778 (Pa. 2002) (case management deadlines; authority to adjust timetable to prevent injustice)
Womer v. Hilliker, 908 A.2d 269 (Pa. 2006) (substantial compliance doctrine; liberal construction of rules to serve justice)
Sahutsky v. H.H. Knoebel Sons, 782 A.2d 996 (Pa. 2001) (Rule 126 liberal construction; disregard procedural defects not affecting substantial rights)
Croydon Plastics Co., Inc. v. Lower Bucks Cooling & Heating, 698 A.2d 625 (Pa. Super. 1997) (five-factor test for discovery sanctions; required balancing when sanctions terminate action)
Cove Centre, Inc. v. Westhafer Const., Inc., 965 A.2d 259 (Pa. Super. 2009) (sanctions standards; termination implications; Byzantine balancing factors)
Reeves v. Middletown Athletic Ass'n, 866 A.2d 1115 (Pa. Super. 2004) (timeliness of discovery governing summary judgment timing)
Burger v. Owens Illinois, Inc., 966 A.2d 611 (Pa. Super. 2009) (purpose of Rule 1035.2; discovery completion before summary judgment)