RX Billing Services, Inc. v. Fazio, J., RX Billing Services, Inc. v. Fazio, J. No. 1778 MDA 2015

Background

RX Billing Services, a family-owned corporation, sued Joseph Fazio after he filed a separate December 2014 suit seeking dissolution and money; relationships soured after Fazio’s wife left the company.
Fazio’s December 2014 suit (docket 14-CV-7438) was dismissed on preliminary objections by the trial court on March 25, 2015.
RX Billing then filed this complaint on June 4, 2015 alleging abuse of process and (later in briefing) a Dragonetti Act (wrongful use of civil proceedings) claim based on Fazio’s allegedly baseless suit used to extort and harass.
Fazio filed preliminary objections arguing RX Billing’s complaint failed to plead abuse of process or damages with sufficient specificity; he did not address a Dragonetti Act claim because RX Billing did not plead it as a separate count.
The trial court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed RX Billing’s complaint, finding the abuse-of-process allegations too vague and emphasizing the short lifespan of the underlying litigation.
The Superior Court reversed: it held the abuse-of-process claim was sufficiently pleaded for demurrer purposes, but declined to decide the Dragonetti Act claim because RX Billing had not pled it as a separate count nor sought leave to amend below.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaint pleads abuse of process	RX Billing: alleged Fazio used suit primarily to harass, extort and cause financial/emotional harm; pleaded use of process, improper purpose, and damages	Fazio: allegations vague; no factual showing process was used primarily for improper purpose; underlying action was legitimate dispute and short-lived	Court: Reversed trial court — complaint sufficiently pleads abuse of process at pleading stage; dismissal improper
Whether complaint pleads wrongful use of civil proceedings (Dragonetti Act)	RX Billing (in briefing): underlying suit lacked probable cause, was used to extort, and terminated in RX Billing’s favor, satisfying Dragonetti elements	Fazio: not addressed in preliminary objections because no Dragonetti count pled	Held: Not decided — Superior Court refused to reach claim because RX Billing never pled Dragonetti as a separate cause and did not amend below
Whether trial court improperly weighed evidence at demurrer stage	RX Billing: trial court impermissibly acted as factfinder and required proof beyond the pleadings	Fazio: relied on complaint deficiencies and the record of dismissal of underlying suit	Held: Superior Court agreed trial court improperly weighed facts; demurrer standard requires accepting pleadings as true
Whether dismissal should have been without leave to amend	RX Billing: even if deficient, dismissal without leave to amend was error; requested leave to amend	Fazio: argued no obligation to allow amendment after losing on preliminary objections	Held: Superior Court noted RX Billing did not seek amendment below; because Dragonetti claim not pled, court declined to rule on amendment — remand permits RX Billing to seek leave to amend if appropriate

Key Cases Cited

Feingold v. Hendrzak, 15 A.3d 937 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for preliminary objections/demurrer)
Shiner v. Moriarty, 706 A.2d 1228 (Pa. Super. 1998) (elements of abuse of process)
Rosen v. American Bank of Rolla, 627 A.2d 190 (Pa. Super. 1993) (abuse of process focuses on misuse of process even if properly obtained)
Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Fabinyi, 650 A.2d 895 (Pa. Super. 1994) (preliminary objections resolved on the pleadings; no outside evidence)
Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229 (Pa. Super. 2008) (discussing abuse-of-process misconduct)
Zitney v. Appalachian Timber Prods., 72 A.3d 281 (Pa. Super. 2013) (pleading a cause of action and Pa.R.C.P. 1019 requirements)
International Union of Operating Engineers v. Linesville Constr. Co., 322 A.2d 353 (Pa. 1974) (preliminary objections/demurrer principles)