Stewart v. Foxworth
65 A.3d 468
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellant, plaintiff’s attorney, appeals a $1000 sanction imposed for failing to appear at a Rule Returnable Hearing.
- The trial court’s background shows multiple prior sanctions for failure to appear at CMCs and Rule Returnable Hearings with notice that further sanctions, including dismissal or preclusion, could follow.
- Appellant failed to appear at the September 19, 2011 CMC and the December 12, 2011 Rule Returnable Hearing, triggering further sanctions and rescheduling.
- A combined $800 sanction existed before the March 12, 2012 hearing, and Appellant gave notice he would not attend the March hearing.
- The March 12, 2012 order added $1000 to the existing sanctions, totaling $1100, and the court did not dispose of the underlying case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sanction order was proper given contempt procedures | Martucci contends no civil contempt finding or proper contempt procedure was used. | The trial court relied on Rule 218 to sanction for failure to appear. | Order reversed; remanded for proper contempt procedure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Himes v. Himes, 833 A.2d 1124 (Pa. Super. 2003) (civil/criminal contempt standards for attorney conduct in court)
- Ricci v. Geary, 670 A.2d 190 (Pa. Super. 1996) (attorney conduct and contempt implications)
- In re Bernhart, 501 Pa. 428, 461 A.2d 1232 (Pa. 1983) (contesting contempt nuances for attorney conflicts)
- Commonwealth v. Giordano, 254 Pa. Super. 543, 386 A.2d 83 (Pa. 1978) (reversal of contempt finding due to in-court conflict without notice)
- Wood v. Geisenhemer-Shaulis, 827 A.2d 1204 (Pa. Super. 2003) (five-step civil contempt process and traumatic show-cause context)
- Moody, 46 A.3d 765 (Pa. Super. 2012) (distinguishing civil vs criminal contempt in context)