Spanier v. Freeh, 95 A.3d 342

Appellants Freeh Sporkin appeal a trial court order staying Spanier’s civil defamation action until Spanier’s criminal proceedings conclude.
Spanier was criminally charged in connection with the Sandusky scandal after the 2012 Report; trial on criminal charges not yet scheduled at the time.”
Spanier filed a praecipe and amended writ to initiate civil defamation against Freeh Sporkin; Pepper Hamilton later dropped from the action.
Trial court granted the stay on February 25, 2014, applying the Adelphia/Anderson six-factor test.
Freeh Sporkin sought reconsideration; the court denied and they appealed seeking collateral-order review.
The issue presented concerns appellate jurisdiction to review a stay order and whether the stay is a collateral order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stay order is a collateral order amenable to review	Spanier	Freeh Sporkin	No; insufficient for collateral-order review
Whether the removal right is protected by collateral-order review under Rule 313	Freeh Sporkin	Spanier	Right of removal not irreparably lost; collateral-order prong not satisfied
Whether the stay irreparably harms removal rights	Freeh Sporkin	Spanier	Removal rights may be preserved via equitable exception; not irreparable

Melvin v. Doe, 575 Pa. 264 (Pa. 2003) (collateral order doctrine requires three prongs for appeal)
Ben v. Schwartz, 556 Pa. 475 (Pa. 1999) (collateral order doctrine applies to interlocutory stay orders)
Rae v. Pennsylvania Funeral Directors Ass’n, 602 Pa. 65 (Pa. 2009) (collateral order doctrine requires three prongs)
Kennedy v. Commonwealth, 583 Pa. 208 (Pa. 2005) (three-prong collateral order test governs review)
Wis. Dept. of Corrs. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381 (U.S. 1998) (removal and public policy considerations in federalism)
Caterpillar v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (U.S. 1996) (removal rights and scope of jurisdiction)