Management Science Assoc. v. Symphony Health
832 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 1, 2017Background
- Symphony Health Solutions (Appellant) filed a praecipe for summons and later a complaint in Montgomery County; Management Science Associates (Appellee) filed a complaint in Allegheny County between those filings.
- Appellee moved in Allegheny County under Pa.R.C.P. 213.1 to coordinate the two actions; the trial court granted coordination in Allegheny County.
- Appellant appealed, arguing the Montgomery County action was initiated first (praecipe filed before Appellee’s Allegheny complaint) and that the court misapplied Rule 213.1.
- Appellant asserted the trial court improperly relied on the fact Appellant filed a declaratory judgment in Montgomery County and that filing should not deprive Appellee of its chosen forum.
- The trial court found the first complaint (for Rule 213.1 purposes) was the Allegheny County complaint and concluded Appellant’s declaratory action in Montgomery appeared aimed at depriving Appellee of its choice of forum.
- The Superior Court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed coordination in Allegheny County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which court is the proper forum to decide a Rule 213.1 coordination motion (where first complaint was filed)? | Appellee: Allegheny complaint was first-filed, so Allegheny may order coordination. | Symphony: Montgomery action initiated first by praecipe; only the court where first-filed may decide coordination. | Held: Allegheny had the first complaint for Rule 213.1 purposes; its coordination order was proper. |
| Whether the trial court should have considered the praecipe filing date in Montgomery as controlling for first-filed status | Symphony: Praecipe for summons in Montgomery preceded Allegheny complaint, so Montgomery is first-filed. | Appellee: Complaint in Allegheny was the first complaint; rule refers to first-filed complaint, not praecipe timing. | Held: The Court treated Allegheny complaint as first-filed; no error. |
| Whether filing a declaratory judgment in a different county is a permissible factor to defeat plaintiff’s forum choice | Symphony: Trial court erred treating declaratory-judgment filing as a factor to deprive forum choice. | Appellee: Declaratory action here sought to adjudicate defenses to Appellee’s contract claim and thus cannot usurp forum choice. | Held: Trial court permissibly considered the declaratory action’s purpose; filing cannot be used to usurp plaintiff’s forum. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in coordinating the cases in Allegheny County | Symphony: Coordination based solely on an erroneous finding and lacked record support. | Appellee: Record shows Allegheny complaint was first and declaratory action sought to litigate defenses. | Held: No abuse of discretion; coordination in Allegheny affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- VMB Enterprises, Inc. v. Beroc, Inc., 891 A.2d 749 (Pa. Super. 2006) (motion for coordination must be filed in court where first complaint was filed)
- Osram Sylvania Prod., Inc. v. Comsup Commodities, Inc., 845 A.2d 846 (Pa. Super. 2004) (declaratory judgment cannot be used to usurp plaintiff’s choice of forum; it should resolve genuine legal uncertainty, not defeat forum selection)
- Richardson Brands, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Dutch Co., Inc., 592 A.2d 77 (Pa. Super. 1991) (orders consolidating under Pa.R.C.P. 213.1 are interlocutory and appealable)