Slusser v. Laputka, Bayless, Ecker & Cohn, P.C.
9 A.3d 1200
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2010Background
- consolidated appeals from a judgment for appellees in a legal malpractice case; trial before Judge Ciavarella with bifurcated claims separating negligence, breach of contract, and fiduciary duty from detrimental reliance; plaintiffs’ counsel included Powell and Moran; Ciavarella’s perceived relationship with Powell raised concerns about impartiality; Ciavarella ultimately granted a motion to recuse after trial; dismissal of detrimental reliance claims occurred later and judgment entered accordingly; post-trial motions and appeals followed, with disputed timing and authority for entering judgments; Pennsylvania Supreme Court subsequently denied extraordinary relief and remand was sought to determine proper remedy,
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s appearance of impropriety tainted the proceedings | Slussers argue impropriety tainted trial; appearance warranted new trial | Cohn/Powell contend no bias affected outcome; recusal was sufficient | Appearance of impropriety required new trial; remand for new trial granted |
| Whether the judgment timing under Rule 227.4 was proper given bifurcated claims | Appellants contend premature entry of judgment | Appellees argue finality upon dismissal of claims | Judgment invalid when pending detrimental reliance claims remained; final judgment proper after dismissal |
| Whether remand is appropriate to develop further record on impropriety | Remand to develop record | No remand necessary; record already shows impropriety | Remand not required; new trial ordered due to appearance of impropriety |
| Whether the “appeal timing” permits review of all issues despite interim rulings | Appeal timely from August 29, 2008 judgment | Challenge to earlier June 16, 2008 judgment improper | Appellants timely appealed from August 29, 2008 judgment; jurisdiction secured |
| Whether Supreme Court remand and extraordinary relief were appropriate to address misconduct | Relief needed to address judicial impropriety | Relief unnecessary pending appellate review | Supreme Court denied extraordinary relief; Superior Court to resolve merits on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Joseph v. The Scranton Times L.P., 959 A.2d 322 (Pa.Super.2008) (defamation, judicial impropriety context; appearance of bias discussed in remand decision)
- Joseph v. The Scranton Times L.P., 987 A.2d 633 (Pa.2009) (Joseph II; Supreme Court plenary review on impropriety and recusal issues)
- Levitt v. Patrick, 976 A.2d 581 (Pa.Super.2009) (discontinuance of claims constitutes final judgment for purposes of finality)
- In re McFall, 617 A.2d 707 (Pa.1992) (appearance of impropriety standard for fairness of trial)
- McCutcheon v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 788 A.2d 345 (Pa.2002) (finality and bifurcated proceedings impact on appellate review)