Szwerc, M. v. Lehigh Valley Health Network
235 A.3d 331
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Szwerc was employed until September 12, 2014; he sued under the WPCL and the trial court granted summary judgment finding Appellees breached his employment contract and awarded wages of $70,590.47 plus substantial attorneys’ fees.
- After reviewing voluminous billing, the trial court awarded reduced attorneys’ fees (finalized at $389,584.50 after post-trial amendment) and entered judgment; both sides appealed to the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court affirmed and treated its memorandum as amending the trial-court order to substitute Lehigh Valley Physician Group as the judgment debtor; the parties then filed a stipulated substituted judgment on September 21, 2018 that included the fee amount.
- On April 4, 2019 (months after the Superior Court disposition and the substituted judgment), Szwerc filed a motion seeking additional attorneys’ fees and costs incurred on appeal and in collecting the judgment (about $156,356.84).
- The trial court denied the motion as untimely and held it lacked jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 and Pa.R.A.P. 1701; Szwerc appealed that denial to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider Szwerc’s post-judgment fee motion under § 5505 | WPCL’s fee-shifting grant contains no time limit; Szwerc could not reasonably file within 30 days because outcome on potential further appellate filings and payment was uncertain | § 5505 and Pa.R.A.P. 1701 divest the trial court of jurisdiction 30 days after entry of a final order; fee motion filed months later was untimely | Court affirmed: § 5505 applies; motion filed well after 30 days was untimely and trial court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether pending appeals or the nature of WPCL fees extend the 30-day filing window | An appeal or uncertainty about enforcement/collection tolls or excuses the 30-day requirement; relies on Millcreek for fee statutes with different timing rules | Appeals do not extend the § 5505 30-day period; trial court may act on timely fee petitions but appeals don’t revive jurisdiction after 30 days | Court held appeals do not extend § 5505; WPCL contains no special exception, so ordinary 30-day rule governs |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller Elec. Co. v. DeWeese, 589 Pa. 167, 907 A.2d 1051 (Pa. 2006) (discusses timing and trial-court authority to award counsel fees and relationship to final judgment)
- Samuel–Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 613 Pa. 371, 34 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2011) (trial court may award statutory fees while an appeal on the merits is pending if fee petition is timely)
- Old Forge Sch. Dist. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 592 Pa. 307, 924 A.2d 1205 (Pa. 2007) (trial court properly addressed fee motion while an appeal from the merits was pending)
- Ness v. York Twp. Bd. of Comm’rs, 123 A.3d 1166 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2015) (motion for counsel fees must be timely under § 5505; appeal does not extend the 30-day window)
- Freidenbloom v. Weyant, 814 A.2d 1253 (Pa.Super. 2003) (trial court jurisdiction generally ends 30 days after final order; fee petitions filed later are nullities)
- Ambrose v. Citizens Nat. Bank of Evans City, 5 A.3d 413 (Pa.Super. 2010) (successful WPCL claimant may recover attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal)
- Township of Millcreek v. Angela Cres Trust, 142 A.3d 948 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2016) (distinguishable—Eminent Domain Code’s unique statutory scheme can exempt fee petitions from § 5505 timing)