Lindsey, H. v. Knabb, R.
288 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs filed a 28‑count complaint (including multiple professional‑liability, fiduciary‑duty, and fraud counts) against Knabb, the Knabb Partnership, and Messersmith arising from an architectural contract and alleged forgery.
- Plaintiffs initially served the complaint in February 2016 and later filed a petition for preliminary and permanent injunction seeking to enjoin arbitration under an AIA contract clause.
- Defendants filed a notice to strike professional‑liability counts for failure to file a certificate of merit; Plaintiffs later filed a certificate of merit in April 2016.
- Plaintiffs voluntarily praeciped to discontinue the action without prejudice in June 2016. Defendants moved for sanctions under Pa.R.C.P. 1042.9(b) in August 2016 for Plaintiffs’ alleged noncompliance with certificate‑of‑merit rules.
- The trial court found Plaintiffs violated the certificate‑of‑merit rule and vacated part of its earlier order but exercised its discretion not to impose sanctions, concluding the violations were not willful, prejudice to defendants was minimal, and the litigation primarily concerned arbitration issues.
- Defendants appealed; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining sanctions after weighing the relevant factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions under Pa.R.C.P. 1042.9 are mandatory when a certificate of merit rule is violated | Plaintiffs (appellants below) argued sanctions should be mandatory to protect the rule | Defendants argued trial court had discretion under the rule to decline sanctions | Court: Rule uses “may”; sanctions discretionary, not mandatory |
| Whether Plaintiffs materially misrepresented obtaining written expert statements (certificate of merit) | Plaintiffs contended they had supporting written statements and later produced a certificate of merit | Defendants argued Plaintiffs misrepresented and failed to produce the required written statements timely | Court: Trial court found violations but credited plaintiffs’ conduct as non‑willful; no sanctions warranted |
| Whether counsel violated Pa.R.C.P. 1023.1 by signing inaccurate certificates | Plaintiffs argued any signature misstatements were not willful or in bad faith | Defendants argued counsel knowingly certified without requisite expert statements | Court: Trial court implicitly found no bad‑faith or willfulness sufficient for sanctions; appellate court defers to that credibility finding |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in weighing sanction factors (nature, willfulness, prejudice, cure) | Plaintiffs argued trial court misapplied the multi‑factor test and ignored severity and willfulness | Defendants argued trial court properly considered factors and exercised discretion | Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court considered factors (minimal prejudice, no willfulness, case focused on arbitration, voluntary dismissal) |
Key Cases Cited
- First Lehigh Bank v. Haviland Grille, 704 A.2d 135 (Pa. Super. 1997) (sanctions decision rests within trial court discretion)
- Eichman v. McKeon, 824 A.2d 305 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Vogelsberger v. Magee‑Womens Hosp. of UPMC Health System, 903 A.2d 540 (Pa. Super. 2006) (rules of construction for Pa.R.C.P.)
- City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5 (Breary), 985 A.2d 1259 (Pa. 2009) (factors for assessing sanctions: number/nature/severity, willfulness, prejudice, ability to cure)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 894 A.2d 151 (Pa. Super. 2006) (interpretation of permissive words such as “may”)
- Echeverria v. Holley, 142 A.3d 29 (Pa. Super. 2016) (trial court decisions are not binding precedent on Superior Court)