Malanchuk, I., Aplt. v. Sivchuk, I.
137 A.3d 1283
| Pa. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff (Malanchuk), a carpenter, sued two different defendants—property owner Sivchuk and coworker Tsimura—in separate actions after a scaffolding fall.
- The trial court consolidated the actions under Pa.R.C.P. 213(a) "for purposes of discovery, arbitration, and if appealed, trial."
- After discovery, the trial court entered an order granting summary judgment in full for Tsimura but only partial relief for Sivchuk.
- Plaintiff appealed under the Tsimura caption; the trial court and a Superior Court panel initially treated the appeal as premature because the consolidated cases, the trial court had suggested, remained a unit for appealability purposes.
- The Superior Court en banc reversed the panel and quashed the appeal; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur to decide whether consolidation under Rule 213(a) merged separate actions for immediate appealability.
- The Supreme Court held that under Azinger and Kincy, consolidation does not effect a complete merger absent identical parties and claims, so the summary judgment for Tsimura was final and immediately appealable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an order awarding summary judgment in one of two cases consolidated under Pa.R.C.P. 213(a) is immediately appealable | Malanchuk: the summary judgment in the Tsimura action was final and appealable because the actions retain separate identities after consolidation | Tsimura/Superior Ct. (en banc earlier position): consolidation should prevent piecemeal appeals; the appeal was interlocutory and premature | Held: Consolidation under Rule 213(a) does not merge separate actions absent identical parties/claims (per Azinger and Kincy); summary judgment as to Tsimura was final and appealable |
| Whether Rule 213(a) permits "complete consolidation" (merger/fusion) of distinct actions for all purposes, including appealability | Malanchuk: the consolidation order should not bar appeal from a final disposition in one originally separate action | Sivchuk/Tsimura: consolidation can be treated as effecting a single proceeding for appealability to avoid piecemeal appeals | Held: Rule 213(a) must be read in light of Azinger and Kincy; complete consolidation requires complete identity of parties/claims and is not accomplished merely by a Rule 213(a) order |
Key Cases Cited
- Azinger v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 262 Pa. 242, 105 A. 87 (Pa. 1918) (consolidation for convenience does not merge distinct actions; separate verdicts and judgments required absent identity of parties and issues)
- Kincy v. Petro, 606 Pa. 524, 2 A.3d 490 (Pa. 2010) (reaffirming Azinger; Rule 213(a) does not authorize complete consolidation of non-identical actions)
- Rae v. Pennsylvania Funeral Dirs. Ass'n, 602 Pa. 65, 977 A.2d 1121 (Pa. 2009) (discusses policy disfavoring piecemeal appeals)
- Keefer v. Keefer, 741 A.2d 808 (Pa.Super. 1999) (treats dispositive pretrial orders in consolidated cases as not immediately appealable where actions remain distinct)
- Knox v. SEPTA, 81 A.3d 1016 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2013) (Commonwealth Court approach: separate judgments from consolidated actions must be appealed independently)