Motley Crew, LLC v. Bonner Chevrolet Co.
93 A.3d 474
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Appellants (Motley Crew, LLC; Joseph R. Reisinger, LLC; Joseph R. Reisinger) sued multiple defendants, including the Crossin brothers and Bonner Chevrolet, alleging fraud and conspiracy.
- Appellants served a Pa.R.C.P. 237.1 notice and filed a praecipe for default judgment for $800,670 after defendants failed to respond.
- Appellees filed a timely Pa.R.C.P. 237.3 petition to open the default judgment and attached a proposed answer; the trial court granted the petition on February 20, 2013.
- On March 18, 2013, Appellants both appealed the trial-court order and filed a praecipe to discontinue the entire underlying action with prejudice as to all defendants.
- The Superior Court sua sponte questioned jurisdiction and ordered the parties to show cause; Appellants argued the discontinuance rendered the interlocutory order final and appealable.
- The court concluded the discontinuance terminated the action (leaving no case or controversy) and quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plaintiff may render an otherwise interlocutory order (order opening default judgment) appealable by filing a praecipe to discontinue the entire action with prejudice | The discontinuance made the trial-court order "final" under Pa.R.A.P. 341(b) because it disposed of all claims and parties | The discontinuance terminated the action, leaving no pending case or controversy and thus depriving appellate court of jurisdiction | Quashed appeal: a discontinuance as to all claims/parties terminates the action and cannot be used to convert an interlocutory order into a final, appealable order |
| Whether Appellants preserved any substantive claims by discontinuing with prejudice before appealing | Discontinuance preserved ability to appeal the trial-court order granting relief to defendants | Discontinuance nullified the action and left nothing for the court to adjudicate or remand | Discontinuance nullifies the action; no case or controversy remains for appeal |
| Whether Commonwealth Court decisions (Hionis, Ayre) permit converting interlocutory orders into final appeals via discontinuance | Hionis and Ayre allegedly support using a praecipe to render certain interlocutory orders final | Those decisions are not binding and are distinguishable here because they involved preserving original-complaint theories threatened by allowance to amend | Court rejects extending Hionis/Ayre to permit wholesale discontinuance to create finality when no claim is being preserved |
| Whether other procedural means could have preserved appellate review | Appellants did not pursue alternative routes (e.g., Rule 341(c) determination or trial-court amendment) | Other procedures could have been used to obtain finality without terminating the action | Court notes alternative procedural mechanisms exist to obtain appealability and distinguishes proper discontinuances as to fewer than all claims/parties |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Rendell, 982 A.2d 1030 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (an actual case or controversy must exist at all stages of review)
- Public Defender's Office of Venango County v. Venango County Court of Common Pleas, 893 A.2d 1275 (Pa. 2006) (same constitutional standing/case-or-controversy principle)
- Hagel v. United Lawn Mower Sales & Serv., Inc., 439 Pa. Super. 35 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) (appeal from order opening a judgment is interlocutory)
- Highway Equipment Co. v. Hamlin Coal Co., 326 A.2d 570 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1974) (same rule that orders opening judgment are interlocutory)