Keesee, J. v. Dougherty, J.
230 A.3d 1128
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2020Background:
- Plaintiffs Joshua Keesee and MCON Electric, LLC sued John Dougherty (IBEW Local 98 business manager), IBEW Local 98, and three union members for battery, intentional interference with contractual relations, concerted tortious action, and civil conspiracy arising from an alleged January 21, 2016 assault and subsequent loss of a non‑union contract.
- Trial court overruled defendants’ preliminary objections and ordered an answer to the amended complaint.
- After media reports of parallel federal and state criminal investigations (and later indictments), defendants moved (Apr. 13, 2018) to stay the civil case, invoking their Fifth Amendment privilege against self‑incrimination.
- The trial court denied the stay and reconsideration, relying largely on similarity-of-issues concerns and noting lack of evidentiary materials (affidavits, indictments) in the record to perform a fuller analysis.
- Defendants appealed; the Superior Court found the appeal immediately reviewable under the collateral-order doctrine and concluded the trial court abused its discretion by considering only one factor.
- Superior Court vacated the denial of the stay and remanded, directing the trial court to apply the Process Gas/Adelphia multi-factor balancing test (including the six Adelphia factors) and to consider indictments and all parties’ arguments and evidence.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Keesee) | Defendant's Argument (Dougherty et al.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability: whether the order denying the stay is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine | The denial is interlocutory and not immediately appealable | The denial implicates the Fifth Amendment, is separable, important, and would be irreparably lost absent immediate review | Superior Court: collateral-order prongs satisfied; appellate jurisdiction exists |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a stay of the civil case pending related criminal proceedings | Stay not warranted; trial court acted within discretion given record | Stay required to protect Fifth Amendment rights; trial court failed to apply full multi-factor test and ignored indictments/evidence | Superior Court: abuse of discretion — vacated denial and remanded for full Process Gas/Adelphia factor analysis (consider indictments and all evidence) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 32 A.3d 243 (Pa. 2011) (articulates Rule 313(b) collateral-order requirements for immediate appeal)
- Spanier v. Freeh, 95 A.3d 342 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discusses stay-pending-criminal-proceedings analysis and acknowledges Adelphia six-factor test)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 220 A.3d 534 (Pa. 2019) (recognizes Fifth Amendment privilege applies in civil proceedings and is deeply rooted public policy)
- Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n v. Process Gas Consumers, 467 A.2d 805 (Pa. 1983) (sets four-factor framework for stays, used as template for civil stays pending related proceedings)
- In re Upset Sale, Tax Claim Bureau of Berks County, 479 A.2d 940 (Pa. 1984) (stay decisions committed to trial court discretion; appellate review for abuse of discretion)