Lomas Sr., R. v. Kravitz, J., Aplts., 2017 Pa. LEXIS 2275

Background

Lomas obtained an arbitration award (later reduced to judgment) against Cherrydale and related entities; James Kravitz controlled those entities and allegedly diverted assets to avoid payment.
Thomas C. Branca originally represented Lomas in arbitration, then became a Montgomery County judge; he withdrew appearance and the case was litigated by SGR; Branca later testified he expected a referral fee tied to net proceeds.
The case proceeded as a bifurcated bench trial before Judge Thomas P. Rogers (liability first, then fees/punitive damages); liability was decided against Appellants in July 2007.
On September 6, 2007, Judge Branca testified during the damages phase about ongoing communications with SGR and a financial interest (a referral fee) in the case; Appellants did not move to recuse immediately.
Appellants filed a motion on October 15, 2007 to recuse the entire Montgomery County bench based on Branca’s involvement; Judge Rogers briefly granted then vacated and ultimately denied recusal; Superior Court and then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the timeliness and merits.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held Appellants waived the recusal claim by not raising it at the earliest possible moment and affirmed the Superior Court judgment; a dissent would have found the motion timely and that Branca’s interest created an appearance of impropriety requiring recusal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lomas)	Defendant's Argument (Kravitz/Appellants)	Held
Timeliness/waiver of recusal motion	Recusal must be raised at earliest moment once facts known; Appellants waited 39 days and thus waived the claim	Appellants argue they only learned full facts on Sept 6, 2007 and filed quickly thereafter; timing distinguishable from post-verdict gamesmanship	Held waived: moving party must raise recusal at the earliest possible moment once facts are known; Oct 15 filing was untimely
Appearance of impropriety from Judge Branca’s financial interest	Even if Branca had an interest, record shows fair trial; appearance must be judged by full-informed-person standard and did not require recusal here	Branca’s ongoing participation and proportional financial stake created an appearance of impropriety undermining public confidence; recusal of county bench required	Court did not reach merits (waiver dispositive); dissent would have held appearance of impropriety warranted recusal
Scope of recusal — entire bench vs. single judge	Recusal of entire Montgomery County bench unnecessary absent demonstrated bias affecting the trial judge	Appellants: Branca’s interest implicated all judges of same bench because awards are decided by bench colleagues; thus whole bench should recuse	Not decided on merits due to waiver; majority rejected automatic presumption that a judge’s interest alone mandates bench-wide recusal
Standard and reviewability for recusal decisions	Lomas: parties aware of facts who fail to object promptly waive issue; recusal denials reviewed for abuse of discretion	Appellants/dissent: request for recusal need not be immediate like evidentiary objection; timeliness should be balanced (propose multi-factor test)	Court affirmed abuse-of-discretion standard and applied existing Pennsylvania precedent requiring prompt objection; declined to adopt new multi-factor test proposed in dissent

Key Cases Cited

In re Lokuta, 11 A.3d 427 (Pa. 2011) (recusal timeliness—failure to raise issues at earliest opportunity is waiver)
Goodheart v. Casey, 565 A.2d 757 (Pa. 1989) (party must raise recusal/disqualification at earliest possible moment)
Reilly by Reilly v. SEPTA, 489 A.2d 1291 (Pa. 1985) (timeliness/waiver principles for recusal; post-trial recusal generally time-barred)
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (U.S. 2009) (due process and objective review regarding appearance of bias)
Zappala v. Brandolini Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 909 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for reviewing recusal denials)