Bailey v. RAS Auto Body, Inc.
85 A.3d 1064
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Bailey operates Springs Body Shop Supplies and alleges an exclusive supply/reimbursement arrangement with Sherwin-Williams and an exclusive RAS contract that Bailey claims was breached by others.
- RAS entered into an exclusive supply agreement with Sherwin-Williams in 2011, with RAS purchasing from Bailey; Sherwin-Williams provided a $60,000 advance to RAS, Bailey allegedly beneficiary of RAS’s purchasing obligations.
- Bailey alleged a conspiracy among RAS, James Beach, NAPA Auto Parts, Mueller, and Martin-Senour to bypass Bailey’s exclusive arrangement.
- Bailey filed praecipe in March 2011, complaint in August 2011, and first amended complaint in October 2011 asserting three counts including breach, interference, and fraud/misrepresentation.
- Trial court sustained some preliminary objections in February 2012 and July 2012, dismissing Count II against certain defendants and Count III entirely, prompting Bailey to file notices of appeal.
- This Court quashed Bailey’s appeal as interlocutory, without prejudice to Rule 341(c) certification nunc pro tunc; Bailey purportedly sought Rule 341(c) certification; trial court later certified the orders as final.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err by relying on matters outside the record in demurrer-style objections? | Bailey contends the court used extraneous materials improperly. | Defendants argue the court properly considered the objections under the record. | No reversible error; the issue is subsumed under certification analysis. |
| Did Bailey fail to file a responding brief as required by local rules, making the demurrer improper? | Bailey claims local rules were misapplied and prior decisions allow flexibility. | Defendants urge strict compliance with Erie County’s local rule 1028(c)(2). | Trial court erred in treating the matter as final solely on that basis; but still quashed for finality reasons. |
| Whether the orders were properly certified as final under Rule 341(c). | Ring-fenced extraordinary circumstances exist to allow immediate review. | No extraordinary circumstances; certification unwarranted. | Certification improper; orders not final under Rule 341(c). |
| Whether the November 7, 2012 certification order properly considered the four factors for finality under Rule 341(c). | The court’s analysis warranted immediate appeal to resolve the case. | The four factors were not adequately weighed; no facilitation of resolution. | Court failed to consider the four factors; improper finality certification. |
| Should the appeal be quashed as interlocutory and unreviewable at this stage? | Certification nunc pro tunc could cure procedural defects and allow review. | Systemic defects and lack of proper finality preclude review at this time. | Appeal quashed as interlocutory and unreviewable at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robert H. McKinney, Jr., Associates, Inc. v. Albright, 429 Pa.Super. 440 (1993) (finality requires substantial justification for immediate appeal)
- In re Estate of Cella, 12 A.3d 374 (Pa.Super.2010) (definition and scope of finality under Rule 341)
- Pullman Power Products of Canada Ltd. v. Basic Engineers, Inc., 713 A.2d 1169 (Pa.Super.1998) (four-factor test for finality under Rule 341(c))
- Estate of Considine v. Wachovia Bank, 966 A.2d 1148 (Pa.Super.2009) (appealability and procedural boundaries of interlocutory orders)
- Stahl v. Redcay, 897 A.2d 478 (Pa.Super.2006) (mechanics of interlocutory review and finality standards)