Greenberg, E. v. Harvey, Pennington, Ltd.
3801 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- Eric B. Greenberg (Chester County) sued law firm Harvey Pennington, Ltd. for accounting and unpaid percentage-based compensation allegedly owed since 2012.
- Harvey Pennington, Ltd. (Appellant) filed a joinder complaint and answer/new matter implicating former partner John F.X. Monaghan (Appellee) for controlling revenue and diverting funds to defend a contempt action in Berks County.
- In August 2016 Pennington sued Monaghan in Philadelphia County over alleged misconduct (fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment) related to the same revenue/diversion issue.
- Monaghan moved to coordinate the Philadelphia and Chester County actions in Chester County under Pa.R.C.P. 213.1; the trial court granted coordination on November 15, 2016.
- Pennington appealed the coordination order, arguing lack of predominating common questions, inconvenience of Chester County venue, inefficiency and prejudice, and no likelihood coordination would promote settlement.
- The Superior Court treated the coordination order as an interlocutory appealable order and affirmed, applying the Rule 213.1(c) factors and finding no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pennington) | Defendant's Argument (Monaghan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common questions of law/fact predominate and justify coordination | The Chester action is an accounting/collection matter distinct from Philadelphia malpractice/misconduct claims; no predominant common question | Both actions center on who controlled firm revenue and whether Monaghan diverted funds to defend the Berks contempt matter | Court held common questions (revenue control/diversion) are predominant and significant; coordination proper |
| Proper forum for coordination (Chester v. Philadelphia) | Philadelphia is more convenient and Chester has no connection; coordination should occur in Philadelphia | Coordination in Chester is appropriate; Chester was original filing county for Greenberg action | Court found no abuse of discretion in choosing Chester; Pennington never challenged Chester venue earlier and no specific inconvenience shown |
| Whether coordination is efficient and avoids prejudice/duplication | Coordination would not be fair/efficient given differing claims and could prejudice Pennington | Single forum will conserve judicial resources, prevent duplicative rulings, and centralize discovery/pretrial issues | Court found coordination would promote efficient use of judicial resources and avoid duplication; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether coordination would promote settlement | There is no meaningful likelihood of settlement; coordination won’t promote settlement | Coordination could potentially promote settlement by consolidating disputes | Court accepted trial court’s finding that coordination could promote settlement and Pennington failed to show abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Ass’n. Ins. Co. v. Pennsylvania State Univ., 63 A.3d 792 (Pa. Super. 2013) (coordination orders are appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 311(c))
- Washington v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., 995 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review and guidance for evaluating Rule 213.1 factors)
- Abrams v. Uchitel, 806 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2002) (coordination proper despite differing legal theories when same transactions/parties involved)
- Wohlsen/Crow v. Pettinato Assoc. Con. & Eng., Inc., 666 A.2d 701 (Pa. Super. 1995) (affirming coordination to avoid duplicative proceedings)
- Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. Donahue, 616 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (discretionary choice of venue and coordination considerations)