Tucker, S. v. Tucker, J., Tucker, S. v. Tucker, J. No. 2049 EDA 2016

Plaintiff Susan L. Tucker sued her mother, Jacqueline Tucker, over damages from a family business dispute; John J. O’Brien III filed the complaint for Susan.
Defendant moved to disqualify O’Brien based on prior representation of Jacqueline in other lawsuits; the trial court disqualified O’Brien by order dated February 23, 2016; no appeal was taken from that disqualification order.
O’Brien subsequently re-entered an appearance for Susan on April 21, 2016 without court approval; Defendant moved on May 6, 2016 to strike that entry of appearance and sought sanctions.
A Rule to Show Cause required a written response by June 13, 2016; no timely response was filed, and the court granted the Motion to Strike and awarded sanctions and fees against O’Brien.
Plaintiff filed an untimely response and then a Notice of Appeal; the Superior Court sua sponte ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the appeal was properly before the Court (questioning appealability).
The Superior Court concluded that the order striking O’Brien’s appearance is an interlocutory, non-appealable order under controlling precedent and quashed the appeal, remanding for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the order striking O’Brien’s entry of appearance is immediately appealable	Plaintiff challenged the underlying procedures and filed appeal from the order	Defendant maintained the order is interlocutory/non-appealable and can be raised after final judgment	The Superior Court quashed the appeal as interlocutory and non-appealable
Whether an unelected judge may hear the case and whether a hearing was required for imposition of a fine	Plaintiff contended an unelected judge lacked authority and a hearing was required when fines/sanctions sought	Defendant relied on procedural rules and timeliness; argued these issues did not justify immediate appeal	Court did not reach the merits of these claims; appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction

Vaccone v. Syken, 899 A.2d 1103 (Pa. 2006) (orders disqualifying counsel are generally interlocutory and not immediately appealable)
Vertical Resources, Inc. v. Bramlett, 837 A.2d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2003) (recognized narrow collateral-order appealability for counsel-disqualification under unique facts)
E.R. v. J.N.B., 129 A.3d 521 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discusses appealability of counsel-preclusion orders and the limited application of Vertical Resources)
Karch v. Karch, 879 A.2d 1272 (Pa. Super. 2005) (quashing disqualification-order appeal as interlocutory)
Sutch v. Roxborough Mem'l Hosp., 151 A.3d 241 (Pa. Super. 2016) (reaffirming that disqualification orders in civil cases are non-appealable interlocutory orders)