Jamestown Condominium v. P. Sofayov v. R.B. Keddie
Jamestown Condominium v. P. Sofayov v. R.B. Keddie - 2642 C.D. 2015
Pa. Commw. Ct.Feb 22, 2017Background
- Jamestown Condominium sued S.P.S. Real Estate, L.P. (a limited partnership) and its general partner Alan Frank over unpaid condominium fees and attorneys’ fees; litigation progressed to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.
- Frank, whose Pennsylvania law license is suspended, filed a Third Amended Complaint to Join additional defendants (Jamestown’s former president, attorney, and managing agent) asserting indemnity, equitable claims, and damages on behalf of S.P.S. and himself.
- Additional defendants objected, invoking Allegheny County Local Rule No. 200(2) requiring partnerships to be represented by licensed counsel and moved to dismiss under Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(2).
- Common pleas sustained the objection and dismissed the Third Amended Complaint to Join without prejudice, concluding Frank (unlicensed) could not represent S.P.S.; Frank sought reconsideration citing In re Lawrence County Tax Claim Bureau.
- Frank appealed, arguing the order was immediately appealable as a collateral order under Pa. R.A.P. 313 and that Lawrence County, Pa. Judicial Code §2501, and Civil Rules permit a general partner to proceed pro se for the partnership.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dismissal order is immediately appealable as a collateral order | Frank: yes — right to self-representation is separable, important, and irreparably lost if review delayed | Additional Defs: not addressed in detail; they did not contest collateral-order status | Court: Yes — order is collateral under Pa. R.A.P. 313 and immediately appealable |
| Whether a general partner may represent a limited partnership pro se in court | Frank: Lawrence County and §2501 allow a general partner to proceed pro se on behalf of a limited partnership | Additional Defs: Local Rule No. 200(2) requires licensed counsel for partnerships; Lawrence County is distinguishable | Court: Held Lawrence County controls — a general partner may represent the limited partnership pro se |
| Whether Allegheny County Local Rule No. 200(2) can bar pro se representation by a general partner | Frank: Local Rule conflicts with Civil Rule 239(f), §2501, and Lawrence County; local rule cannot abridge those rights | Additional Defs: Local rules govern court procedure and are valid unless contrary to Supreme Court rules; LR 200(2) is permissible | Court: LR 200(2) cannot be applied to prevent a general partner from proceeding pro se consistent with Lawrence County; sustaining PO on that basis was erroneous |
| Whether the Third Amended Complaint to Join was properly dismissed without prejudice pending counsel substitution | Frank: dismissal on LR 200(2) basis was improper; leave to proceed should be allowed with Frank representing S.P.S. | Additional Defs: dismissal appropriate to enforce local rule requiring counsel | Court: Reversed dismissal; remanded for further proceedings (anticipating refile if necessary) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lawrence County Tax Claim Bureau, 998 A.2d 675 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (held a general partner may proceed pro se on behalf of a limited partnership)
- Rae v. Pennsylvania Funeral Dirs. Ass’n, 977 A.2d 1121 (Pa. 2009) (discusses narrow application of collateral order doctrine and issue-by-issue review)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 78 A.3d 1070 (Pa. 2013) (recognizes that the right to self-representation is effectively lost if not immediately vindicated)
- Walacavage v. Excell 2000, 480 A.2d 281 (Pa. Super. 1984) (principle that corporations must be represented by licensed counsel)
- In re Conservatorship Proceeding in Rem by Germantown Conservancy, Inc., 995 A.2d 451 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (local rules invalid if they abridge or modify substantive rights)
- The Spirit of the Avenger Ministries v. Commonwealth, 767 A.2d 1130 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (addressed inability of a pastor to represent a nonprofit corporation)
- Expressway Assocs. II v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. of Conn., 642 A.2d 62 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994) (treats partnerships as requiring counsel in that jurisdiction)