Yampolsky Mandeloff v. Liberties Lofts, LLC
Yampolsky Mandeloff v. Liberties Lofts, LLC No. 25 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 21, 2017Background
- Appellee accounting firm sued Liberties Lofts, LLC and 11 other defendants in 2011 for unpaid fees; the record shows only Liberties Lofts was served with original process.
- Case went to compulsory arbitration; arbitration awarded Appellee $16,001.50; Liberties Lofts appealed de novo.
- Multiple discovery orders required depositions of Appellee’s partners (Mandeloff, Silver); trial court initially granted summary judgment for Liberties Lofts for discovery noncompliance, which this Court reversed on appeal.
- On remand, the trial court precluded Appellee from offering liability/damage evidence for discovery noncompliance; that ruling led to nonsuit at trial but was later vacated and a new trial ordered.
- After depositions were taken, a non-jury trial awarded Appellee $21,955.18 (including interest) against Liberties Lofts and one unserved defendant; several other unserved defendants prevailed.
- The Superior Court sua sponte concluded the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the unserved defendants and therefore did not enter a final, appealable order; the appeal was quashed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Superior Court has jurisdiction over appeal when judgment disposed of some unserved defendants | Appellee (plaintiff below) did not contest finality; implicitly treated judgment as final | Liberties Lofts argued trial errors but did not contest service defects | Court held no jurisdiction because many defendants were never served with original process, so no final order disposing of all parties was entered; appeal quashed |
| Whether trial court could enter judgment against unserved defendant | Appellee treated judgment against some unserved parties as valid | Liberties Lofts argued procedural defects and prior discovery sanctions issues | Court held trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over unserved defendants, so judgment as to them was void and prevented finality |
| Whether discovery sanction (preclusion) and related prior appellate decision affected trial proceedings | Appellant argued trial judge abused discretion in admitting evidence precluded by earlier order | Appellee argued prior appellate reversal and later events (depositions) rendered prior preclusion inapplicable | Court did not reach merits because jurisdictional defect (lack of service) rendered the appeal non-justiciable |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloome v. Alan, 154 A.3d 1271 (Pa. Super. 2017) (trial court lacks jurisdiction over unserved defendants; no final order unless all parties adjudicated)
- Sharp v. Valley Forge Medical Center and Heart Hospital, Inc., 221 A.2d 185 (Pa. 1966) (service of process is prerequisite to personal jurisdiction)
- Bell v. Kater, 943 A.2d 293 (Pa. Super. 2008) (judgments rendered without subject-matter or personal jurisdiction are void and may be attacked at any time)
- Estate of Considine v. Wachovia Bank, 966 A.2d 1148 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate court may raise jurisdictional defects sua sponte)
- Cahill v. Schults, 643 A.2d 121 (Pa. Super. 1994) (failure to effect proper service deprives court of personal jurisdiction)
- Brooks v. B & R Touring Co., 939 A.2d 398 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discussing effect of non-service and when parties should be stricken)