Intech Metals, Inc. v. Meyer, Wagner & Jacobs
153 A.3d 406
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Hanlin retained Attorney Thomas Wagner and his firm in the 1980s to form Intech Metals and related Valform; disputes arose with co-founder Phillips over stock and performance.
- Appellants (Intech, Valform, Hanlin) sued appellees (Wagner and firm) in 1996 for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from prior Phillips litigation and related matters.
- Pleadings closed in 1999; the case then lay largely dormant on the docket from 2006–2012, with limited non‑docket activity (letters, an expert report, some communications).
- Appellees moved for judgment of non pros for inactivity; after initial denial and reconsideration, the trial court granted the motion and entered judgment of non pros.
- Appellants timely filed a petition to open the judgment but failed in that petition to allege facts supporting a meritorious cause of action as required by Pa.R.C.P. 3051(c).
- The Superior Court affirmed: it deemed challenges to the underlying non pros waived because the petition to open did not satisfy Rule 3051(c), and it also held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting non pros given lack of diligence and actual prejudice to defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in entering judgment of non pros for inactivity | Delay was excused by non‑docket activity and Hanlin's death; mere passage of time insufficient | Long docket inactivity (2006–2012), non‑docket acts were insubstantial; delay impaired defense | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; lack of diligence and inadequate excuse supported non pros |
| Whether petition to open the non pros was properly denied under Pa.R.C.P. 3051(c) | Petition was timely and sought to challenge the underlying judgment | Petition failed to allege facts showing a meritorious cause of action as Rule 3051(c) requires | Affirmed: petition to open denied because it did not plead facts supporting a meritorious claim (waives attack on underlying order) |
| Whether there was a compelling reason for delay (James‑Jacobs second prong) | Significant non‑docket activity and decedent plaintiff’s death justified delay | Non‑docket activity was minimal and not dispositive; death occurred many years after pleadings closed and notice was delayed | Held: no compelling reason; non‑docket activity insufficient and death did not excuse extended prior inactivity |
| Whether defendants suffered actual prejudice from delay (James‑Jacobs third prong) | Prior depositions and testimony preserved evidence; deaths of witnesses did not prejudice defendants | Delay deprived defendants of opportunity to depose/cross‑examine witnesses on allegations in this suit; witness loss diminished defense | Held: actual prejudice established — loss of ability to fully examine deceased witnesses and other diminution of defendant's trial position |
Key Cases Cited
- Stephens v. Messick, 799 A.2d 793 (Pa. Super. 2002) (Rule 3051(c) requires petition to show facts supporting a meritorious cause of action)
- Jacobs v. Halloran, 710 A.2d 1098 (Pa. 1998) (articulating James‑Jacobs three‑part test for non pros: diligence, compelling reason, actual prejudice)
- James Bros. Lumber Co. v. Union Banking & Trust Co., 247 A.2d 587 (Pa. 1968) (earlier statement of inactivity/prejudice rule)
- Florig v. Estate of O’Hara, 912 A.2d 318 (Pa. Super. 2006) (petition to open must satisfy Rule 3051(c))
- Madrid v. Alpine Motor Corp., 24 A.3d 380 (Pa. Super. 2011) (appeal from non pros lies only from denial of petition to open; Rule 3051 limits review)
- Marino v. Hackman, 710 A.2d 1108 (Pa. 1998) (non‑docket activity can sometimes rebut inference of inactivity if it shows progress toward disposition)
- Jung v. St. Paul’s Parish, 560 A.2d 1356 (Pa. 1989) (meritorious cause of action for petition to open requires facts supporting the claim)
- Valley Peat & Humus v. Sunnylands, Inc., 581 A.2d 193 (Pa. Super. 1990) (appellate review of non pros is for abuse of discretion)
- Metz Contracting v. Riverwood Builders, 520 A.2d 891 (Pa. Super. 1987) (actual prejudice includes loss of material witnesses or other substantial diminution of ability to present case)