*1 J-A15039-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
CHRISTOPHER PUMA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA Appellant :
: : v. :
: : MILLERSVILLE MUTUAL INSURANCE : No. 1062 MDA 2024 COMPANY :
Appeal from the Order Entered July 3, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Civil Division at No(s):
2021-12639 CHRISTOPHER PUMA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA Appellant :
: : v. :
: : MILLERSVILLE MUTUAL INSURANCE : No. 1673 MDA 2024 COMPANY :
Appeal from the Judgment Entered December 16, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Civil Division at No(s):
2021-12639 BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. [*]
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: AUGUST 29, 2025
In these consolidated appeals, Christopher Puma appeals from the December 16, 2024 judgment on the entry of nonsuit in favor of Appellee, ____________________________________________
[*] Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A15039-25
Millville Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter “Millville”). [1] After careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case, as gleaned from the certified record, are as follows: On July 7, 2021, an exterior portion of Appellant’s residence was struck by a motor vehicle. Millville was the insurer of Appellant’s residence at the time of the accident. Appellant s ubmitted a claim to Millville under his policy. The policy limit for property damage to the entire structure was $50,000. For seven weeks following the submission of the claim, Appellant failed to provide Millville with a repair estimate as requested by Millville and required by his policy. On August 13, 2021, Millville engaged Edward B. Gieda Jr., an independent adjuster, to inspect the property damage caused by the vehicle impact so as to facilitate payment under the policy. Gieda inspected the structure and on September 10, 2021, furnished ____________________________________________
[1] Appellant’s appeals at Nos. 1062 MDA 2024 and 1673 MDA 2024 were consolidated by per curiam order of this Court on January 10, 2025. Appellant purported to appeal from the trial court’s July 3, 2024 order finding him in contempt for his repeated discovery violations and his violation of the trial court’s February 1, 2024 sanctions order; the August 7, 2024 order granting the motion for nonsuit filed by Millville; and the October 9, 2024 order denying his post-trial motion to remove and/or strike the entry of nonsuit in favor of Millville. This Court has long recognized, however, that “in a case where nonsuit was entered, the appeal properly lies from the judgment entered after denial of a motion to remove nonsuit.” Billig v. Skvarla , 853 A.2d 1042, 1048 (Pa.Super. 2004). A review of the trial court docket reveals that final judgment on the entry of nonsuit was ultimately entered in this matter on December 16, 2024.
- 2 - *3 J-A15039-25
a repair estimate of $20,616.23. Thereafter, Appellant provided Millville with a one-page document prepared by Gene Kocher of Kocher Construction, generally proclaiming that the repairs would cost $72,428.89. Millville then offered to pay Appellant $12,900.55 — that is, the full value of estimate less 35% depreciation ($7,215.68) and the policy deductible ($500.00) — and holding back the depreciation amount until after the insured provides proof that the repairs were effectuated, under the terms of the policy. Appellant refused the $12,900.55 payment, and on December 27, 2021, filed suit against Millville on the basis that its damage valuation was inaccurate and improper.
During the course of discovery, Appellant was found in contempt of the trial court’s sanctions order following his repeated failure to comply with Millville’s discovery requests during the court -mandated discovery period. On July 3, 2024, the trial court ordered Appellant to pay $4,333.00 for reasonable attorneys ’ fees incurred by Millville due to Appellant’s failure to comply with the court’s sanctions order.
The trial court summarized the pertinent procedural history which led to this finding of contempt as follows:
During the discovery period, on December 8, 2022, [Millville] filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. The Motion to Compel Discovery Responses was granted after an evidentiary hearing and [Appellant] was ordered to produce responses to [Millville’s] First Requests for Admission, Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents within twenty (20) days.
- 3 - *4 J-A15039-25
Millville next filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Leave To Take Depositions Outside of the Discovery Period on January 25, 2023. After oral argument, an Order was entered granting the requested relief and directed the deposition of [Appellant] to occur within thirty (30) days and expert depositions to occur within sixty (60) days of March 31, 2023.
On March 15, 2023, [Millville] again filed a Motion for Discovery Sanctions in that the depositions did not occur pursuant to the Order of January 25, 2023. The motion was supplemented with additional averments on June 6, 0223. [Appellant] filed a Brief in Opposition to the Motion for Sanctions on June 12, 2023 and a hearing was conducted on June 12, 2023.
The matter was held in abeyance pending other motions.
On December 29, 2023, after ruling on all other matters, the Motion for Discovery Sanctions was granted based on the hearing conducted on June 12, 2023 and the Court again compelled the depositions of [Appellant] and [Appellant’s] expert. The Order directed the depositions of Christopher Puma and Eugene Kocher to occur within forty-five (45) days or by February 13, 2024. [Appellant’s] Counsel was directed to provide three available dates for each deposition within ten (10) days or by January 8, 2024.
[Appellant] was sanctioned to pay reasonable counsel fees of [Millville] in pursuing the depositions as Ordered on March 8, 2023 and by Order dated March 31, 2023.
During the June 12, 2023 hearing on [Millville’s] Motion for Discovery Sanctions, [Millville] produced multiple correspondences in support of his attempts to schedule the depositions in accordance with the March 31, 2023 Order. [Appellant] provided minimal responses to the requests. [Appellant] then proposed that the depositions be conducted virtually on the weekend. [Millville] attempted to accommodate [Appellant’s] request for virtual weekend depositions, however [Appellant] retracted the request for virtual
- 4 - *5 J-A15039-25
depositions after several weeks claiming that [he] did not have Zoom capabilities.
. . . .
On December 29, 2023, the Court entered an Order sanctioning [Appellant] and directed [Millville] to submit a detailed counsel fees statement. On January 18, 2024, [Appellant] provide the statement of counsel fees. After review of the fees submitted, on February 1, 2024, an order was issued directing [Appellant] to pay … [$3,800.00] in reasonable fees and costs within sixty (60) days.
[Appellant sought reconsideration of the Sanctions Order on March 4, 2024, which was denied on March 6, 2024. [Appellant] did not provide the ordered payment.
On April 22, 2024, [Appellant] filed a Motion for Contempt and for Sanctions. An evidentiary hearing was scheduled for July 1, 2024 and [Appellant] was ordered to appear.
Trial court opinion, 11/6/24 at 1-3 (internal citations, emphasis, parentheticals, and footnote omitted).
As noted, following the July 1, 2024 evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Appellant in contempt of its sanctions order and ordered him to pay $4,333.00. See Contempt Order, 7/3/24. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s July 3, 2024 contempt order on July 23, 2024, which was docketed at No. 1062 MDA 2024.
Thereafter, on July 30, 2024, the trial court entered an order giving notice to all parties that Appellant’s notice of appeal does not preclude the jury trial on the merits from proceeding as scheduled and set trial date for
- 5 - *6 J-A15039-25
August 7, 2024. After Appellant and his counsel failed to appear at the scheduled jury trial, Millville moved for the entry of a nonsuit pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 218(a), which was granted by the trial court that same day. On August 19, 2024, Appellant filed a motion for post-trial relief to remove and strike judgment of nonsuit pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 227.1 and 230.1. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion for post -trial relief on October 9, 2024.
On November 8, 2024, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s August 7, 2024 order granting the motion for nonsuit filed by Millville; and the October 9, 2024 order denying his post-trial motion to remove and/or strike the entry of nonsuit in favor of Millville. This appeal was docketed at No. 1673 MDA 2024.
The record reflects that at the time Appellant filed his notices of appeal, there was no judgment on the entry of nonsuit on the docket. Accordingly, we remanded the case and directed Appellant to praecipe the Prothonotary to enter judgment on the entry of nonsuit and to file with this Court a certified copy of the trial court docket reflecting the entry of judgment within fourteen days. See Per Curiam order, 12/12/24. Appellant timely complied and final judgment on the entry of nonsuit was entered in this matter on December 16, 2024. We therefore treat this appeal as timely. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) ( stating, “[a] notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a determination
- 6 - *7 J-A15039-25
but before the entry of an appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof.”). [2]
Appellant raises the following 16 interrelated issues for our review:
1. Whether the [trial court] committed an error of
law and abuse of discretion in its finding [Appellant] in contempt of court by order dated July 3, 2024?
2. Whether the [trial court] committed an error of
law and abuse of discretion in failing to find [Appellant’s] failure to comply with or respond to the court order was not intentional nor a product of inadvertence?
3. Whether the [trial court] committed an error of
law and abuse of discretion as the court’s decision was based on insufficient evidence that [Appellant]’s act in not complying with the order was volitional; and that [Appellant] acted with wrong intent?
4. Whether the [trial court] committed an error of
law and abuse of discretion in failing to find that due to circumstances beyond [Appellant’s] control, [he] was unable to comply with the court’s order?
5. Whether the [trial court] committed an error of
law and abuse of discretion in failing to find that [Appellant] presented sufficient evidence to support his defenses to the contempt citation, which were not groundless, meritless or put forth in bad faith?
____________________________________________
[2] Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Notably, the trial court filed a comprehensive, 12-page opinion in support of its decision finding Appellant in contempt on November 6, 2024. Thereafter, on January 31, 2025, the trial court filed an additional, 13-page opinion in support of its decision to deny Appellant’s post -trial motion to remove and strike the entry of nonsuit in favor of Millville.
- 7 - *8 J-A15039-25
6. Whether the [trial court] committed an error of
law and abuse of discretion in failing to find that [Appellant’s] actions did not constitute a willful failure to comply with any order of the [trial court]?
7. Whether the [trial court] committed an error of
law and abuse of discretion in failing to find that [Appellant’s] actions or failures to act were not contemptuous behavior?
8. Whether the trial court erred in its finding of
contempt in that the complaining party, which has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that [Appellant] violated a court order, did not meet such burden?
9. Whether the [trial court] committed an error of
law and abuse of discretion in failing to find that to impose civil contempt, the trial court was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt from the totality of evidence presented, that [Appellant] had the present ability to comply with the court’s order?
10. Whether the [trial court] committed an error of
law and abuse of discretion in failing to consider mitigating circumstances?
11. [Whether b]ased upon the facts and
circumstances of this matter, whether the [trial] court committed an error of law and abuse of discretion in the trial court’s finding that [Appellant] was in contempt of court and its imposition of sanctions were both unreasonable and excessive?
12. Whether the [trial court] committed an error of
law and abuse of discretion in the court’s grant of [Appellee’s] motion for nonsuit pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 218(a) and in its denial of [Appellant’s] post -trial motion to remove and strike the judgment of non-suit?
- 8 - *9 J-A15039-25
13. Whether the [trial court] committed an error of
law and abuse of discretion in failing to find that on July 23, 2024 [Appellant] filed of record a notice of appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court from the court’s order finding [Appellant] in contempt of court by order dated July 3, 2024, which had been entered of record with the Prothonotary in this court’s docket entry sheet in the above-captioned matter and that therefore, pursuant to 210 Pa.Code Rule 1701(a), after the appeal was taken the trial court could no longer proceed further in the matter?
14. Whether the [trial court] committed an error of
law and abuse of discretion in failing to find the appealability of the court’s July 3, 2024 order directly impacted the jurisdiction of the Superior Court and in failing to find that the Court of Common Pleas order did not have jur isdiction to grant [Appellee’s] motion for non suit?
15. Whether the [trial court] committed an error of
law and abuse of discretion in failing to find that upon [Appellant’s] filing of a notice of appeal, the Court of Common Pleas did not have jurisdiction and the trial court was no longer authorized to proceed further in the matter until it was resolved on appeal?
16. Whether the [trial court’s] decision was contrary
to law? Appellant’s brief at 4-8 (numeration added). This Court has explained our standard of review for a civil contempt order as follows:
When considering an appeal from an Order holding a party in contempt for failure to comply with a court Order, our scope of review is narrow: we will reverse
- 9 - *10 J-A15039-25
only upon a showing the court abused its discretion.
The court abuses its discretion if it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason.
Harcar v. Harcar
,
A motion for compulsory non-suit allows a defendant to test the sufficiency of a plaintiff ’ s evidence and may be entered only in cases where it is clear that the plaintiff has not established a cause of action; in making this determination, the plaintiff must be given the benefit of all reasonable inferences arising from the evidence. When so viewed, a non-suit is properly entered if the plaintiff has not introduced sufficient evidence to establish the necessary elements to maintain a cause of action; it is the duty of the trial court to make this determination prior to the submission of the case to the jury.
When we review the grant of a non-suit, we must resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the party against whom the non-suit was entered. A compulsory nonsuit is proper only where the facts and circumstances compel the conclusion that the defendants are not liable upon the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff.
Gregury v. Greguras
, 196 A.3d 619, 625 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted),
appeal denied
,
Following a thorough review of the record, including the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned analysis of the trial court, it is our determination that Appellant’s claims on appeal warrant no relief. The trial court ’s duel Rule 1925(a) opinions comprehensively discussed and disposed of Appellant’s plethora of intertwined issues, concluding that they
- 10 - *11 J-A15039-25
were without merit. We find that the conclusions of the trial court are supported by competent evidence and are free of legal error.
Specifically, we agree with the trial court that its contempt finding was warranted given that the record clearly establishes Appellant’s multiple discovery violations and his intentional disobedience and disregard for its February 1, 2024 sanctions order. We further agree with the trial court that the record demonstrates that Appellant was not credible in his averments regarding non-payment of sanctions (counsel fees); and that Appellant and his counsel consciously and deliberately failed to appear for the August 7, 2024 jury trial in defiance of the trial court’s multiple notices and orders that the trial was taking place as scheduled. We also agree with the trial court that Appellant’s appeal of the July 3, 2024 contempt order did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction and did not operate as an automatic stay of the proceedings. We find that the trial court properly concluded that it had jurisdiction to preside over the August 7, 2024 jury trial in this matter and it properly exercised its jurisdiction in entering nonsuit following Appellant and his counsel ’s failure to appear. See trial court opinion, 11/6/24 at 6-12; trial court opinion, 1/31/25 at 7-13.
Accordingly, we adopt the comprehensive November 6, 2024 and January 31, 2025 opinions of the Honorable Tina Polachek Gartley as our own for purposes of this appellate review. The parties are instructed to attach the opinions of the trial court in any filings referencing this Court’s decision.
- 11 - *12 J-A15039-25
Order and Judgment affirmed. Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/29/2025
- 12 - *13 Circulated 08/25/2025 12:03 PM • - m IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS T { T m U o n z X N OF LUZERNE COUNTY o ] z
o - CHRISTOPHER PUMA, o . { a m - 7 u
l q = [*] Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION { o z - o
o V. NO. 2021-12639 ) z I N ) o N ) I { c r z a c n z m MILLVILLE MUTUAL INSURANCE c m
< ( < COMPANY, Z oo U J Defendant J
Appellate Procedure No. 1925(a). This Opinion is furnished pursuant to the requirements of Pennsylvania Rule of B i i i Y OPINION C # p & On July 3, 2024 the Court granted the Defendant, Millville Mutual Insurance u Company's, Motion for Contempt and for Sanctions. Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Appear on u N July 23, 202 and pursuant to the Order of August 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a "Concise $ 3 N { Statement of Matters Complained of on Appear on August 22, 2024. Background and Procedural History The instant action was initiated on December 27, 2021 by the filing of a· Complaint. During the discovery period, on December 8, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel
Disc'very Responses. (See Docket, generally). The Motion to Compel Discovery Responses was granted after an evidentiary hearing and Plaintiff was ordered to produce h responses to Defendant's First Requests for Admission, Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents within twenty (20) days. (A copy of the Order dated December 21, 2022 is attached hereto).
APPENDIX "B" I z I - x ! ! f ; s schedule the depositions in accordance with the March 31, 2023 Order. Plaintiff provided "Sanctions Order"). Sanctions, Defendant produced multiple correspondences in support of his attempts to 8, 2023 and by Order dated March 31, 2023. each deposition within ten (10) days or by January 8, 2024. Plaintiff was sanctioned to pay by February 13, 2024. Plaintiff's Counsel was directed to provide three available dates for reasonable counsel fees of the Defendant in pursuing the depositions as Ordered on March depositions of Christopher Puma and Eugene Kocher to occur within forty-five (45) days or again compelled the depositions of Plaintiff and Plaintiffs expert. The Order directed the was granted based on the hearing conducted on June 12, 2023 and the Court (See Sanctions abeyance pending other motions. Docket, (See and a hearing was conducted on June 12, 2023. The matter was held in Order dated September 20, 2023). filed a Brief in Opposition to the Motion for Sanctions on June 12, 2023 generally) (See the depositions did not occur pursuant to the Order of January 25, 2023. The motion was Plaintiff generally). Docket, supplemented with additional averments on June 6, 2023 of Plaintiff to occur within thirty (30) days and expert depositions to occur within sixty (60) days of March 31, 2023. (A copy of the Order dated March 31, 2023, is attached hereto). argument, an Order was entered granting the requested relief and directed the deposition on January 25, 2023. After oral Take Depositions Outside of the Discovery Period X N e p Defendant's Motion for Discovery During the June 12, 2023 hearing on the g g Motion for Discovery On December 29, 2023, after ruling on all other matters, the Motion for Discovery Sanctions On March 15, 2023, Defendant again filed a in that s *14 Defendant next filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Leave To * $ F = ; : { * F # s N I ! G F $ N h x x $ 3 d $ e € December 29, 2023 Order (the (See } x s F $ H s m u q q & s $ R $ H $ F $ $ t N # X ; f $ Z $ # s u p *15 minimal responses to the requests. The Plaintiff then proposed that the depositions be * r $ * + + * l € * r conducted virtually on a weekend. Defendant attempted to accommodate Plaintiff's request l i i € H l $ f € b for virtual weekend depositions, however Plaintiff, retracted the request for virtual + H + H l q depositions after several weeks claiming that the Plaintiff did not have Zoom capabilities. It $ + * is noted that the request for the virtual depositions was made by the Plaintiff for the < P Plaintiff's deposition. Despite this, Plaintiff then informed the Defendant that his clients did not have ZOOM capabilities and needed to schedule the depositions live. (See the An evidentiary hearing was Defendant's Motion for Contempt and For Sanctions, generally). scheduled for July 1, 2024 and the Plaintiff was ordered to appear. [1] The Plaintiff did not denied on March 6, 2024. (A copy of the Order is attached hereto). provide the ordered payment. Sanctions Order, directed Defendant to submit a detailed counsel fees statement. (See lg_.). 2024, Defendant provided the statement of counsel fees. After review of the fees submitted, generally). hundred thirty ($3,830.00) dollars in reasonable fees and costs within sixty (60) days (See February 1, 2024 Order attached hereto). on February 1, 2024, an order was issued directing the Plaintiff to pay three thousand eight On January 18, On April 22, 2024, the Defendant filed a Motion for Contempt and for Sanctions. (See Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the Sanctions Order on March 4, 2024, which was On December 29, 2023, the Court entered an Order sanctioning the Plaintiff and $ } . $ $ P m $ $ $ d d 6 6 $ $ $ V k
[1] The Motion for Reconsideration did not include any averments as to the inability to pay. o J l o [3] o J v o ooo + f o f f o L d o c o ) f 5 ) l l o a o oo ) ) D : o E =
July 1, 2024, Evidentiary Hearing . L N m s o o g C I + s $ $ At the hearing, the Defendant argued that the February 1, 2024 Order was clear and q - I o I r [ 1 a e ^ € d r ] E E d _ i + there was no ambiguity or grey area. The order provided sixty days for payment and "a f i I q ! 4 € g ; 2 r r E 5 A d : i ! E € ] E penny was never paid". (N.T. p. 4). The Plaintiff, Christopher Puma, testified that he was f f I - ' € + 3 g 6 r E i g o e o [ able to pay the attorney's fees but chose not to pay noting he owns multiple residential : ; i e 6 ; f 4 d A : Z I ; 5 ; 6 o ; property rental units, a used car business, and his own personal home. (N.T. pp. 6-8). f : I A - 3 ; 3 d , ? , e 3 6 C q 7 3 I I f Plaintiff testified that his used car lot was not performing well, however produced no f ; 8 - + q d q = q A q 3 o o evidence of car sales or income other than claiming he sold a few cars last years, or any - d q support of that Order, in which this Opinion is furnished. to pay the outstanding three thousand eight hundred thirty ($3,830.00) dollars sanction and See Order"). an additional five hundred ($500.00) dollars. ( July 3, 2024 Order (the "Contempt q q does not work and failed to produce any evidence of attempts to gain employment. (N.T. p. Court did not find Plaintiff credible. Based on his testimony and complete lack of evidence to support any of his averments, the evidence of an attempt to sell the rental properties. (N.T. p. 13). Plaintiff testified that he 14). Further, Plaintiff produced no evidence of an inability to work or pay. (N.T. p. 14). properties being in arrears on rent, no evidence of vacancy of the rental properties, nor any other evidence to substantiate his slow business. rental property tenants were behind on rent, however produced no evidence of the rental _ n e The Court found Plaintiff to be in contempt of the Sanctions Order, Ordered Plaintiff On July 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Appeal" to the Contempt Order. It is in x d , q I q , c , , D = = - f I _ A q q I q = _ d e z = q € ? f G e o _ q Z , f (N.T. p. 14). Plaintiff testified that his p G q _ ? R - N Y H = = € d d c = € l i } o l *17 QUESTIONS AT ISSUE: c l l m [6] l { l l o l z a l l l l l @ 6 l c l I
{ - The Defendants filed twelve issues, several of which are substantially the same o U o + J r = o o - ) + a [6] = [0] = - o o6 - g o € ' c o a aoo a a0 - o ) { r J [6] ' [0] [5] ) oa a - o o @ ) , a a ) [0] t o oa : ) 3o [0] ) analysis. The issues shall be addressed as follows: f ) - a , v t - - o o ' € oa a J a - L [0] o t ( ) o - - o o @ o o a - ) [0] o a t o a
t i 1. The finding of Christopher Puma in Contempt of Court by Order L C { C L discretion. dated July 3, 2024 was both legally erroneous and an abuse of # ' e + o d ' : r < d o - o B ; = A - 3 7 s d o i ! l 6 \ < = = ' s o A D ( [3] o = € 9 b { r l ! ' i r t , ' : , < r o = , o o o 2. The trial court erred in failing to find that Christopher Puma's t ] . = ' i J failure to comply with or respond to the Court Order was not intentional nor a product of inadvertence. o = o T c i = . r [*] [0] t [9] 1 o = 9 d " r t l < _ . t = o 9 3 . ; e i 3 6 ' X [5] L c + , O ' = [0] [3] c [*] ' i d ' l l [*] t o o * ) c o t : c . : t d 9 i ' E d p S l o O t J o Y ) 3. The trial court erred as a matter of law and/or abused its , , { o o = ' evidence that Christopher Puma's act in not complying with the discretion, as the Court's decision was based on insufficient order was volitional; and that Christopher Puma acted with wrong intent. ' d * : 9 d + I [*] ' - < [5] ( ) A o O r o = r ! - d . F , A } . , ' . d . 8 F t P 9 o . I 3 Q = e 3 o . { - ' d o o - - l l o o 5 t F [3] < r ' = F ( C l . 5 { F ' v 9 A { 8 . # + t o c A Y - - o ( < J J o = 4. The trial court erred in failing to find that due to circumstances o | c r . 5 o o comply with the Court's Order. beyond the Defendant's control, Christopher Puma was unable to < o 9 ! . < [6] . ' o . a 5 o [5] o o l 8 A L c = r t d d = 8 I 3 d o o . ' [6] o d 9 o 5 3 [0] ' : t { o . 9 D c t @ r t = o O o o r . O
l
,
!
5. The trial court erred in failing to find that Christopher Puma
r
{
O
forth in bad faith.
contempt citation, which were not groundless, meritless or put
presented sufficient evidence to support his defenses to the
9
l
l
9
r
r
L
!
o
6
e
3
{
.
r
{
l
r
-
.
-
[0]
[5]
'
'
=
'
[5]
-
-
-
3
=
_
E <
=
'
o
o
.
o
-
-
r
J
9
l
=
' Y
o
A
t
o
t
:
(
o
8
,
:
=
o
r
o
-
.
,
A
Z
o
:
r
=
.
o
t
=
o
'
=
o
o
9
r
=
.
J
J
A
-
:
:
D
O
[*]
.
o
=
r
P
9
t
t
=
!
c
=
J J
o
t
o
6. The trial court erred in failing to find that Christopher Puma's
{
o
actions did not constitute a willful failure to comply with any Order
of this Court.
O
{
j
o
5
o
'
[6]
-
b
t
L
o
t
[9]
8
o
=
[5]
.
[0]
[6]
:
L
!
o t
o
= O
t
.
:
o
-
o o
b
o
o
9
'
[6]
-
6
[5]
o
[3]
o
€
€
! l
-
9
o
7. The trial court erred in to find that failing Puma's
Christopher {
actions or failures to act were not contemptuous behavior.
L
o
o t
, O
!
G
l
]
o
u
!
!
[3]
, 8. To sustain a finding of civil contempt, the complainant must prove
violated a court order, was not met.
and (3) that the contemnor acted with wrongful intent. The trial
specific order or decree which he is alleged to have disobeyed; (2)
that the act constituting the contemnor's violation was volitional;
certain distinct elements: (1) that the contemnor had notice of the
proving by a preponderance of evidence that Christopher Puma
court erred in that the complaining party, which had the burden of
O
v
O
O
^
v
V
l
i
Y
O
C
d
q
&
k
X
Y
j
*18
9. The trial court erred in failing to find that to impose civil contempt
o
!
}
{
r
.
-
r
[7]
the trial court was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt from the
totality of evidence presented, that Christopher Puma had the
present ability to comply with the court's order.
-
f
3
g
d
t
J
-
r
A
r
.
-
Y
r
r
<
[*]
r
r
<
1
r
'
9
I
r
O
o
o
t
{
t
o
X
-
V .
!
c
[*]
t
.
S
O
l
9
€
o
l
c
e
(
t
O
-
.
H
E
.
-
e
J
- !
e
l
q
I
=
o
(
e
q
.
=
=
q
'
*
"
$
e
X
g
o
e
[*]
p
'
=
1
o
l
l
o
.
c
l
6
B
'
d
e
3
[*]
a
t
t
t
-
'
=
E
L
C
!
.
-
c
o
r
c
.
S
[*]
-
-
o
;
r
q
9
3
o
3
d
f
I
-
,
,
)
o
t o
J
J
10. The
o
{
circumstances.
o
o
[*]
3
.
o
.
trial court erred
e
L
s
o
o
o o o C
o
L
in
failing
,
[3]
6
o d a o oo o (
to consider mitigating
'
q
,
!
G
11. Based upon the facts and circumstances of this matter, the trial
8
r
9
3
and its imposition of sanctions were both unreasonable and
excessive.
court's finding that Christopher Puma was in contempt of court
1
f
f
f
-
[*]
[6]
w
.
)
6
3
'
[*]
Y
J
O
[*]
[3]
o
(
o
[*]
O
f
[*]
Q
'
l
i
,
-
o
o
o
o
e
$
q
9
6
o
L 6
-
-
-
e
$
5
e
'
$
o
q
$
3
.
-
,
s
5
e
a
l
g
;
f
s
c
6
'
;
[*]
o
o
d
e
12. The Defendant/Appellant has not yet received the lower Court's
N
o
J
9
this matter,
the Appellant requires the Transcripts of the proceedings held in
supplement this PA. R.A.P. 1925 (b) Statement until such time after
the remaining transcripts are received.
Opinion supporting its contempt finding nor the complete Court
Transcripts in this case concerning the contempt proceedings. As
6
o
_
S
e
3
'
g
the undersigned
3
4
H
;
,
[2]
.
-
requests
(
C
l
8
4
B
,
8
6
1
H
.
e
1
_
o
s
[5]
leave of court to
H
&
,
;
l
g
l
l
l
Discussion
l
l
c
l
l
l
l
l
1. The finding of Christopher Puma in Contempt of Court by Order
discretion.
dated July 3, 2024 was both legally erroneous and an abuse of
;
;
N
- O
(
€ ;
O
h
C
c
c
<
The first question at issue is whether, "[t]he finding of Christopher Puma in
B
673 (Pa. Super. 1996). Contempt can be proven via intentional disobedience or
discretion status. Sinaiko v. Sinaiko, 664 A.2d 1005, 1009 (Pa. Super. 1995). To sustain
a finding of civil contempt, the following distinct elements must be proven: (1) the
Id, contemnor acted with wrongful intent. (citing Marian Shop, Inc. v. Baird,
r
l
3
F
the discretion of the trial court. In re Est. of Tomcik,
2. The trial court erred in failing to find that Christopher Puma's t ! . { failure to comply with or respond to the Court Order was not intentional nor a product of inadvertence. ' o o , ! O J - . o r { O Z . ' o X I I . . o o o O c . ' ! t d S I o u 3. The trial court erred as a matter of law and/or abused its ^ L { o evidence that Christopher Puma's act in not complying with the discretion, as the Court's decision was based on insufficient order was volitional; and that Christopher Puma acted with wrong intent. . v C O o o \ { { . . o ! , o { o < V { 8 # . AV o 6. The trial court erred in failing to find that Christopher Puma's actions did not constitute a willful failure to comply with any Order of this Court. O L = O U o ! ! O J *20 ;
Questions at issue numbers two, three, and six are all related to Plaintiff's i I ; E E $ g E contemptuous acts being intentional, volitional, and willful, and will be addressed together. i g " l I As set forth in the background and procedural history, there has been a continual i l $ g i delay, blatant disregard, and noncompliance in partaking in discovery, and after a hearing, i u i l i I i the delays were found to be the fault of the Plaintiff. Due to Plaintiffs continual delay and ; ; I ; disregard of the Court's orders that compelled discovery responses and depositions, Plaintiff was sanctioned in the form of monetary counsel fees that Defendant incurred I I throughout the discovery period to compel Plaintiffs participation and enforce compliance with the Court's orders. Plaintiff testified in the affirmative that he understood the discovery I process, and the effect on Defendants for Plaintiff's failure to abide by the court orders and " n associated costs incurred. (N.T. pp 9-11) Despite being ordered by the Court to pay the monetary sanctions, Plaintiff again n I knowingly chose not to abide by the Court's order and pay the sanction. Defendant argued, "[w]e illustrated that the Plaintiff has violated almost every Court Order or deadline that has ] b existed in this case." (N.T. p. 4). This Court found Plaintiff in contempt of court, after an j evidentiary hearing wherein Plaintiff testified which showed a blatant disregard of the Court's Orders and lawful process, which was found to be intentional, volitional, and willful. Issues four, five, nine, and ten are similar and shall be heard together. 4. The trial court erred in failing to find that due to circumstances beyond the Defendant's control, Christopher Puma was unable to comply with the Court's Order. p 6 5. The trial court erred in failing to find that Christopher Puma } presented sufficient evidence to support his defenses to the contempt citation, which were not groundless, meritless or put forth in bad faith.
9. The trial court erred in failing to find that to impose civil contempt o ! *21 J . E totality of evidence presented, that Christopher Puma had the the trial court was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt from the present ability to comply with the court's order. 3 E E . < i i o o { F o X c V 1 r [*] o E ; o " R v E { J i l o [*] o ( F s i ! K [*] E 1 l i [*] c E 9 E r t t E F L C J o . c s r . o - R 3 n 3 [6] , . X . o - J J 10. The { circumstances. c trial court erred s o o o in failing = = t G I o o o to consider mitigating d o 3 n ( ; to pay the ordered sanctions and will be addressed together. Plaintiffs ability to pay the ordered sanctions was thoroughly analyzed and inquired to at the evidentiary hearing. The Plaintiff, Christopher Puma, explicitly testified that he was able to pay the Questions at issue numbered four, five, nine, and ten all relate to Plaintiffs ability ; ; b ; E E * $ e ; E E E i i * p z l i attorney's fees that were ordered. (N.T. p. 6). Plaintiff could pay the sanctions, but chose g q not to pay noting he owns multiple residential property rental units, a used car business, Z * and his own personal home. (N. T. pp. 6-8). Plaintiff testified that his used car lot was not Z performing well, however produced no evidence of car sales or income other than claiming q g he sold a few cars last year, or any other evidence to substantiate his slow business. (N.T. p. 14). Plaintiff testified that his rental property tenants were behind on rent, however g ? produced no evidence of the rental properties being in arrears on rent, no evidence of vacancy of the rental properties, nor any evidence of an attempt to sell the rental properties. b G (N.T. p. 13). Plaintiff testified that he does not work and failed to produce any evidence of z attempts to gain employment. (N.T. p. 14). Further, Plaintiff produced no evidence of an m inability to pay. (N.T. p. 14). Plaintiff further produced no evidence of attempting to make any payment to Defendants in an attempt to satisfy any part of the sanctions order. It was not until the hearing on contempt where the Plaintiff stated, "(a]ctually, I can give Z [Defendants] a hundred dollars today." (N.T. p. 9). Based on his testimony and complete ) q find Plaintiff credible. *22 lack of evidence to support any of his alleged mitigating circumstances, the Court did not _ [*] d - o O r [6] - O O € = ' Issues eight and eleven are addressed as follows: - t < [9] [*] b = * X o ( , 3 . H B = = : a o D @ $ = O - E o ! H - 6 o ) 0 = f < $ q d = & ' ' 6 d s a o ( o . 8 - [8] a ( I ) d [5] F : , = ) L J = ' ( 9 o o ' . C + - a f [0] ) J oo o o - J @ = o o c d = g -
8. To sustain a finding of civil contempt, the complainant must < [5] ! Q I r l violation was volitional; and (3) that the contemnor acted with wrongful intent. The trial court erred in that the complaining evidence that Christopher Puma violated a court order, was not met. have disobeyed; (2) that the act constituting the contemnor's prove certain distinct elements: (1) that the contemnor had party, which had the burden of proving by a preponderance of notice of the specific order or decree which he is alleged to . = = s F f E E 3 s r f d r s l f F f s E - 9 E * i I F * l i n t s E l E l r i g g : s D ( O J l r O O r [3] i ' e 1 3 F i i l s = B E , h . l - = 11.Based upon the facts and circumstances of this matter, the trial = o o l and its imposition of sanctions were both unreasonable and court's finding that Christopher Puma was in contempt of court excessive. l x ' - . - = . = l i e Q r r ' o o d o l - o o X ? ! - X . - r - o 3 9 P 6 D d o o - r r - . l ' r J L o - . = = d d P ! ! . . - . o d o o D J o o d compliance with virtually all the Court's previous orders. The specific decrees in which the court. Ricci v. Geary, 670 A.2d 190, 192 (Pa. Super. 1996). The imposition of counsel fees the following distinct elements must be proven: (1) the contemnor had notice of the specific can serve as a sanction upon a finding of civil contempt. Sutch v. Roxborough Mem'I contemnor's violation was volitional; and (3) the contemnor acted with wrongful intent. order or decree which he is alleged to have disobeyed; (2) the act constituting the Id. Hosp., 142 A.3d 38, 68 (Pa. Super. 2016) proven via intentional disobedience or intentional disregard for the lawful process of the (citing Marian Shop, Inc. v. Baird, 670 A.2d 671, 673 (Pa. Super. 1996). Contempt can be Proceedings to enforce compliance with a decree of court are civil in nature. Lachat v. Hinchcliffe, 769 A.2d 481, 488 (Pa. Super. 2001). To sustain a finding of civil contempt, L . i l i . The instant contempt decree is civil in nature for the purpose of enforcing Questions at issue eight and eleven are related and will be addressed together. & J C & w p I J ; f I x q d @ _ l i ? r r + $ [ $ that led to contemptuous behavior was clear and free of ambiguities. It was Ordered to pay dollars. (See December 29, 2023 Order and February the sanction in the monetary amount of three thousand eight hundred thirty ($3,830.00) 2024 Order). The violated order 1, *23 contempt finding derives from was this Court's December 29, 2023, Order granting reasonable counsel fees and costs in the amount of three thousand eight hundred thirty Defendant's Motion for Discovery Sanctions, followed by the February 1, 2024 Order setting * + { + H $ H c F $ $ , e [ : : ; E E f * $ E $ $ $ * I [ ($3,830.00) dollars within sixty days of the date of the Order, due to Plaintiff's failure to G f [ H I abide by previous Orders compelling discovery depositions. (See December 29, 2023 H X j Order and February 1, 2024 Order). The three thousand eight hundred thirty ($3,830.00) $ H $ $ dollars represented reasonable counsel fees and costs, after the Court reviewed a fee ] f statement provided by Defendants. (See December 29, 2023 Order and February 1, 2024 Order). The three thousand eight hundred thirty ($3.830.00) dollars sanction in reasonable counsel fees was considerably less than the fees sought by Defendants, as noted by Defendants in their argument at the contempt hearing. (N.T. p. 5).
a $ As discussed fully above, the Court found Plaintiffs acts to be intentional, volitional, and willful through his intentional disobedience and disregard of the Court's orders. The Plaintiff testified that while he was able to pay the three thousand eight hundred thirty ($3,830.00) dollars sanction as the Court ordered, he "preferred not to." (See N.T. pp. 6; 9) Plaintiff was made fully aware of the basis for the orders to compel discovery and depositions, the orders for sanctions for failure to abide by those orders. (See N.T. pp. 12 l i 16). Plaintiff acted with an intentional disregard and intentional disobedience of this Court's Order. The order of contempt was the result of multiple orders being intentionally v & h disregarded and purposely disobeyed. Defendants have incurred substantial fees and / oaa o o costs due to the contumacious behavior of Plaintiff. As such, the Court found Defendant to c oo [5] f ooo c [3] ) J c *24 o o o a o ) - o f ; u q o aa ; J [3] o c o o o - t c o o o ' J o ) o f have met all required elements for a finding of civil contempt of court. J ) o 3o d L o o [6] oo3 J U o ' o ' - ) J g f o ( o c ooo E o3 = oo = o r 12. The Defendant/Appellant has not yet received the lower Court's ! Opinion supporting its contempt finding nor the complete Court Transcripts in this case concerning the contempt leave of court to supplement this PA. R.A.P. 1925 (b) Statement proceedings held in this matter, the undersigned requests until such time after the remaining transcripts are received. proceedings. As the Appellant requires the Transcripts of the o G n x p o U d g from the July 1, 2024 contempt hearing. in response to Plaintiff's matters complained of on appeal and upon the transcript furnished j Finally, in response to the question in issue number twelve, this Opinion is issued N J r 5 O = T p o @ C
m End of Opinion o [5]
J *25 Circulated 08/25/2025 12:03 PM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ! r m { m z - = O o c z A = l m o o = n N c ' OF LUZERNE COUNTY z
o CHRISTOPHER PUMA, - . - a { o - o m L - c ! >
T Plaintiff q = CIVIL ACTION n l o z - o _ o - S V. o < COMPANY, MILLVILLE MUTUAL INSURANCE O = < ( o - > Z - m = - c - c { - = a _ m z [7] o z I N NO. 2021-12639 ) N o ) . A ) ) ' c C D ( o o oo Defendant o J - ) J
o3 z 6 z OPINION Appellate Procedure No. 1925(a). This Opinion is furnished pursuant to the requirements of Pennsylvania Rule of = o n - u = On August 7, 2024, the trial court granted the Defendant, Millville Mutual Insurance = g u , . Company's, Motion for Nonsuit. Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Post Trial Relief To Remove \ - = P D \ and Strike the Judgment of Non-Suit Pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1 and 230.1" on August o = v o - ^ 3 1 = = = . o - 19, 2024. On October 10, 2024, the trial court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Post Trial Relief. = n . _ & = @ { q 5 J S o n Plaintiff filed his "Notice of Appear to the Superior Court on November 8, 2024, and ! ) Y o . o Y S x C pursuant to the Order of November 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a "Concise Statement of Matters . h J Complained of on Appear on December 2, 2024. j Background and Procedural History D x o ) ! o o ! g o demurrers were sustained as to counts IV, V, and VI, and further the claim for attorney fees count Complaint. The Defendant filed Preliminary Objections, and after consideration of briefs filed by the parties and oral argument, the preliminary objections in the form of The instant action was initiated on December 27, 2021, by the filing of a six (6) v J } ) p J ( U J x J the depositions did not occur pursuant to the Order of January 25, 2023. The motion was case deadlines were clearly laid out. (See Docket, generally). As such, three (3) claims I. generally). (See Docket, filed a Brief in Opposition to the Motion for Sanctions on June 12, 2023 (See Docket, *26 and costs were stricken from Count € $ H of Plaintiff to occur within thirty (30) days and expert depositions to occur within sixty (60) generally). (See Plaintiff Docket, remained for Breach of Contract, Statutory Bad Faith, and Fraud and Misrepresentation. argument, an Order was entered granting the requested relief and directed the deposition and a hearing was conducted on June 12, 2023. The matter was held in was granted after an evidentiary hearing and Plaintiff was ordered to produce Responses generally) (See abeyance pending other motions. Order dated September 20, 2023). supplemented with additional averments on June 6, 2023 (See days of March 31, 2023. generally). The trial court then issued a Scheduling Order, wherein all the generally). (See Docket, Docket, (See Docket, generally). Production of Documents within twenty (20) days. (See Docket, responses to Defendant's First Requests for Admission, Interrogatories, and Reguests for court again compelled the depositions of Plaintiff and Plaintiff's expert. The Order directed Compel Discovery Responses. The Motion to Compel Discovery generally). was granted based on the hearing conducted on June 12, 2023, and the trial Sanctions To Take Depositions Outside of the Discovery Period on January 25, 2023. After oral g H * * _ X $ - x + s [ B q * " : - Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Leave The Defendant next filed a Motion for Discovery Sanctions On March 15, 2023, Defendant again filed a in that Motion for Discovery On December 29, 2023, after ruling on all other matters, the d F Motion to During the discovery period, on December 8, 2022, Defendant filed a [6] F E F g F R F + * s + e + m B q g q $ ? € T x a 3 + N e - 6 + 3 s s A E * $ 3 + $ $ $ B H s Z } $ $ x B $ ; f q + u A s E s s q d B € a ; s 5 8 B s s q $ R € B b j R N s - s * 5 F $ g N - s 8 S e ; : n F R * $ - d q R e - s " N l i a B s s B b O $ F * - * a g s s e + E s $ s F R E $ * q d d s d u d *27 + $
the depositions of Christopher Puma and Eugene Kocher to occur within forty-five (45) days * * o ? or by February 13, 2024. Plaintiffs was directed to provide three available dates for each H F f : e deposition within ten (10) days or by January 8, 2024. (See Docket, generally). Plaintiff F f f € e * € r e was sanctioned to pay reasonable counsel fees of the Defendant in pursuing the H € r * ? f depositions as Ordered on March 8, 2023, and by Order dated March 31, 2023. (See f € d e Docket, generally). * r = d " During the June 12, 2023, hearing on the Defendant's Motion for Discovery < " e r x + Sanctions, Defendant produced multiple correspondences in support of his attempts to d schedule the depositions in accordance with the March 31, 2023 Order. Plaintiff provided * # $ * minimal responses to the requests. The Plaintiff then proposed that the depositions be * + * [ * conducted virtually on a weekend. Defendant attempted to accommodate Plaintiff's request * * for virtual weekend depositions, however Plaintiff, retracted the request for virtual + + + depositions after several weeks claiming that the Plaintiff did not have Zoom capabilities. It l i is noted that the request for the virtual depositions was made by the Plaintiff for the < _ Plaintiff's deposition. Despite this, Plaintiff then informed the Defendant that his clients did x < not have ZOOM capabilities and needed to schedule the depositions live. (See Docket, o q l i generally). On December 29, 2023, the trial court entered an Order sanctioning the Plaintiff and h & directed Defendant to submit a detailed counsel fees statement. (See Docket, generally). } { On January 18, 2024, Defendant provided the statement of counsel fees. After review of the fees submitted, on February 1, 2024, an order was issued directing the Plaintiff to pay three X thousand eight hundred thirty ($3,830.00) dollars in reasonable fees and costs within sixty ? (60) days (See Docket, generally). v C *28 e Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the Sanctions Order on March 4, 2024, which was H F i e + q g a S I E g + g E F = F ; = d = r 5 d d denied on March 6, 2024. (See Docket, generally). The Plaintiff did not provide the ordered a
g + d E E payment. a ; E ? + F = o o ; - I t On April 5, 2024, the trial court issued a Jury Trial Order, setting out all deadlines for , B P 3 F F q : a ; ; F E : B p + d = U d = ; = : E jury document submissions and scheduling a Final Pre-Trial Conference for July 29, 2024. } < | - G P (See Docket, generally). t 3 $ p 3 S ; a o + ; On April 22, 2024, the Defendant filed a Motion for Contempt and for Sanctions. (See I - ^ S , + F 3 F + a . t h q r Docket, generally). An evidentiary hearing was scheduled for July 1, 2024 and the Plaintiff r ' q q = 4 = q r @ r was ordered to appear. The trial court found Plaintiff to be in contempt of the Sanctions Order, + r : 3 + - ; o G S 3 ; = ; L x T Ordered Plaintiff to pay the outstanding three thousand eight hundred thirty ($3,830.00) = J - B : ; o o - = _ & + = x dollars sanction and an additional five hundred ($500.00) dollars. ( See Docket, generally). On I - : v u + = + + b : July 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Appeal" to the Contempt Order. (See Docket, : b generally). Docket, jury trial. ( Upon receipt of correspondence from the trial court's See a "Response and Objection of Christopher Puma to the Presume Order of Court Received generally). In Plaintiff's Response and Objection, Plaintiff chambers to all counsel, which indicated that the pending Motions in Limine will be addressed during the scheduled Final Pre-Trial Conference on July 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed asserts there was an "unreceived" Order of Court, referring to the scheduled the pre-trial conference, and further asserts due to his Notice of Appeal to the Contempt Order, the trial generally). on July 27, 2024." (See Docket, court no longer has jurisdiction, and the trial court may not proceed in the matter. (See = : On July 24, 2024, the Defendant filed several Motions in Limine for the upcoming y I f C O O ( ( O O ^ = j = O = J = = = = = Q n _ b $ g = C + h / L P = n J \ T O + = & = Docket, generally). Defendant continued to submit and file of record all of their jury trial g q B s S + [6] ? 3 i 3 3 , q q = + *29 l i I } | " / u q d the trial court gave direct notice to all parties that the trial will commence due to the matter testimony, or any issues related to the jury trial, and the filing of the Notice of Appeal does X submissions pursuant to the Jury Trial Order. (See Docket, generally). on appeal being entirely unrelated to the merits of the claim. That notice and ruling is Appeal on the Contempt order is resolved. The trial court directed the Plaintiff to file the letter as of record. (See Docketed August 5, 2024, Letter attached hereto). reflected on the July 30, 2024, Order of Court. In the July 30, 2024 Order the trial court trial until his stated, inter alia, the contempt order that is on appeal does not preclude evidence, Order, attached hereto). The trial court issued a separate Order on July 30, 2024, generally). generally). documents. (See Docket, scheduling argument on the pending Motions in Limine for August 5, 2024. (See Docket, neither Plaintiff nor his counsel will be participating in the pre-trial proceedings or the jury of Jury Trial Order, on the basis that Plaintiff failed to submit and file any required jury trial not preclude the [trial court] from proceeding with the trial as scheduled. (See July 30, 2024 Plaintiff. The trial court issued an Order on August 6, 2024, reflecting that Plaintiff failed to appear, and deferred the rulings on the pending motions until the time of trial. The trial q " d f E A . , S ? q P € , S E The August 5, 2024, oral argument on the Motions in Limine proceeded without During the July 29, 2024 pre-trial conference, wherein Plaintiff's counsel appeared, On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to the trial court indicating that Defendants, on August 2, 2024, filed a Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiff's Violation . = q q . E Y d ^ " > O g I U - E H = g 3 f 3 E + C 5 ? - - 1 A 5 : 3 E A B q - x - - A 3 f f q i l d i l 4 q 4 > A " 1 - 2 > u 1 g q 3 5 r g l l g i i n H . . . 1 B P + 5 H j ] d l A A Y N + = q x 3 f A P ? t 3 8 " 3 € _ Z u u 6 6 _ - r B F F t ; 3 - d N C *30 r court again further Ordered that the Jury Trial remains scheduled for August 7, 2024. (See i a l r A e g - L i " t i i € F . F P l 3 3 A d r August 6, 2024 Order, attached hereto). a i F F e a { F On August 7, 2024, at the scheduled Jury Trial, wherein neither Plaintiff nor his 3 - - q q , ) F N s F counsel appeared, Defendant moved for Nonsuit pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 218(a). By way of l i l t " r 5 r q ; : J e w s 3 r t 1 F i Order on August 7, 2024, the trial court granted Defendant's Motion for Nonsuit. (See l i A i i P l a i August 7, 2024, Order attached hereto) l F X F On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff files a "Motion for Post Trial Relief to Remove and " l F ' 3 2 - 4 8 " Strike Judgment of Non-Suit Pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1 and 230.1." (See Docket, r ? o o \ generally). The Defendant filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Post Trial ^ - E E F l r l u o - l Relief of August 29, 2024. (See Docket, generally). The trial court scheduled oral argument r T P t < l 3 . " J 5 6 Q F ' on Plaintiff's submission for October 9, 2024. (See Docket, generally). On October 9, 2024, - ! 6 5 F T - ' - 6 o 5 o the trial court denied Plaintiff's Motion for post- trial relief. (See October 9, 2024 Order t l S o l " Z ( 6 o attached hereto). It is from the August 7, 2024 Order granting Nonsuit and October 9, 2024 3 o P Order denying post- trial relief, in which this Appeal derives. QUESTIONS AT ISSUE: o m a { o z @ {
The Defendants filed four (4) issues, several of which are substantially the same J U o o f o o - = a ) [6] ) - - o o [6] [5] - + a ' c o a _ - aoo a _ o ' [6] J ) - oa c ( U ' ) f [4] ) + ' [0] oa o [3] ) ) analysis. The issues complained of on appeal are as follows: J a - ) y ' { - U o ) o o3 U E o @ ) ) o o ' - o o J ) o ' [5] o ) o ) ao o : ) 2. The trial court erred in failing to find that on Tuesday July 23, 2024, grant of the Defendant's Motion for Nonsuit pursuant 1. The Court's the Plaintiff filed of record a Notice of Appeal to the Pennsylvania to Pa.R.Civ.P. 218(a) as to the Plaintiff's cause of action was both Superior Court from the Court's Order finding Christopher Puma entered of record with the Prothonotary in this Court's docket legally erroneous and an abuse of discretion. in contempt of court by Order dated July 3, 2024, which had been ' J - { b _ P L < P ( ) , ! ) - - _ y v O c O < - x L Y - J - - J - r - ) The ten (10) day deadline to file for post-trial relief was August 17, 2024, however that [1] calendar date landed on a Saturday. o O O J Y O _ O + ) O o a o _ a o6 a ) C @ ( o N { ) ) _ [5] o o J + ) E t l
t o entry sheet in the above-captioned matter and that therefore, the trial court could no longer proceed further in the matter. pursuant to 210 Pa. Code Rule 1701 (a), after the appeal was taken a E l o d E ! r t : . - - o R f F o q , = r E o o o - < o o - r O ! F E 3 . : : r d Q [ i 1 : : o o : . - - ' l l ' c L - ! , ! : O E E ! E E = A *31 ; B E F I O ) q r { o t F F 9 3. The appealability of the Court's July 3, 2024 Order directly t . S ( N oo o 3o g € o Common Pleas Order did not have jurisdiction to grant the Defendant's Motion for a Non-Suit on August 7, 2024. In re Estate implicated the jurisdiction of the Superior Court and the Court of of Considine v. Wachovia Bank, 966 A.2d 1148, 1151 (Pa. Super. 2009). # g o L ' E ' a E . = L : E ! + . . f t ( . O r r ' o J A r " - + . , - r l ' ( x ' l o E o a . l b ' ? = o r o = = r t A - o a = o E D O D C E < ) t ( - c = : J , C L " a : * - @ - O B : a l , o - L r ! d l l . P ! U l d l . Q o l r l E ' ; , S l [*] ' o T € q d ' 4. The Court erred and abused its discretion in failing to find that Common Pleas did not have jurisdiction and the trial court was no upon the Plaintiff's filing of a Notice of Appeal, the Court of longer authorized to proceed further in the matter until it was resolved on Appeal. ( J ( { ; o - - P d - 3 # O ' o L A - - . d l ! - - - Y , o [9] J - C o w < o o o o ^ - o o ! L d t f d q > , . : J t t o E E - - - C ( t ' = - ' a l o : = t P . P / A - l Discussion g a o
The remaining three issues are essentially the same issue regarding the trial court's The first issue raised on appeal is regarding the trial court's granting of nonsuit. _ , [ , 3 ? A A _ jurisdiction and authorization to move forward in the case while the Plaintiff's Appeal on € the Contempt of Court was pending. As such the remaining three issues will be discussed together. discretion or error of law standard. 169 A.3d 120, 124 (Pa. Super. 2017). Baird v. Smiley, An appeal form nonsuit is not ripe until after a move to remove the nonsuit has been legally erroneous and an abuse of discretion. Appellate review of a non-suit is abuse of 2004). Billig v. Skvarla, presented to the court and denied. 853 A.2d 1042, 1048 (Pa. Super. o o ? The first question at issue is whether granting Defendant's motion for Non-Suit was 1. The Court's grant of the Defendant's Motion for Nonsuit pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 218(a) as to the Plaintiff's cause of action was both legally erroneous and an abuse of discretion. & ? b D ? b R ? \ h ( ( Y *32 i * l + A compulsory nonsuit at trial may be granted where the plaintiff has failed to i + l e I e b B i i i F U a + f I f p establish a right of relief at the close of plaintiff's case. Pa. R.C.P. 230.1. Where a case I L l i a _ F i # [ f f s i is called for trial, and without satisfactory excuse a plaintiff is not ready, the court may j l l q P F s a a i i ; enter a nonsuit on motion of the defendant or a non pros on the court's own motion. Pa. a i F i s ; a I A a q ; q i s " R.C.P. 218(a). A party who fails to appear for trial shall be deemed to be not ready without { l satisfactory excuse. Pa. R.C.P. 218(c). f F l F F l Here, the trial court made the Plaintiff aware, multiple times, that trial in the matter ? 5 l i I m F l still scheduled and moving forward, as the issue on appeal was collateral and wholly ! ; " N A ; unrelated to any issue or merits of the case. (See July 30, 2024 Order attached hereto; ; ; " A [ ; , See also August 5, 2024, Order attached hereto). Plaintiff not only received notice of and A acknowledged that trial was to commence but blatantly advised the trial court that neither Plaintiff nor his counsel will be attending any pre-trial proceedings or the jury trial. (See Docketed August 4, 2024, Letter attached hereto). Accordingly, upon Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel failure to appear at trial, E E Defendant moved for a nonsuit, which was granted by the trial court. (See Docket, generally). Granting nonsuit for the failure of Plaintiff to appear at trial is expressly p permitted by the rules of civil procedure. Pa. R.C.P. 218(c); Pa. R.C.P. 230.1. Therefore, - r L the trial court did not commit an error of law, nor an abuse of discretion in granting a K nonsuit when Plaintiff clearly abandoned his trial after given multiple notices that the case V would still be called on August 7, 2024. (See July 30, 2024 Order attached hereto; See f also August 5, 2024, Order attached hereto). ' E jurisdiction and authorization to move forward on the case while Plaintiff's Order of Contempt is on Appeal with the Superior Court. As such, they will be addressed together. f ( *33 Questions at issue numbers two, three, and four are all related to the trial court's q 2. The trial court erred in failing to find that on Tuesday July 23, 2024, i l E E g the Plaintiff filed of record a Notice of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court from the Court's Order finding Christopher Puma entry sheet in the above-captioned matter and that therefore, entered of record with the Prothonotary in this Court's docket the trial court could no longer proceed further in the matter. in contempt of court by Order dated July 3, 2024, which had been pursuantto 210 Pa. Code Rule 1701 (a), after the appeal was taken B S € g q E [3] t 4 g ; i g l g l l l l 1 f A g ; g 1 E t g t l g [ f 3 s l g l i t l l l ; E E t g E 3 8 * ' [5] l @ i g 3. The appealability of the Court's July 3, 2024 Order directly g t g S implicated the jurisdiction of the Superior Court and the Court of : Common Pleas Order did not have jurisdiction to grant the [ Defendant's Motion for a Non-Suit on August 7, 2024. In re Estate of Considine v. Wachovia Bank, 966 A.2d 1148, 1151 (Pa. Super. : 2009). | 4. The Court erred and abused its discretion in failing to find that ' : upon the Plaintiff's filing of a Notice of Appeal, the Court of Common Pleas did not have jurisdiction and the trial court was no : longer authorized to proceed further in the matter until it was resolved on Appeal. < due to his Notice of Appeal regarding the Order of Contempt that was issued earlier in was solely monetary in nature. (See Docket, generally). litigation, prevented the trial court from having jurisdiction to continue proceedings in the instant case. The Order the Plaintiff was then appealing, was an Order of Contempt, which Put succinctly, Plaintiff was sanctioned for failing to abide 6, 2024. history regarding the Contempt Order is thoroughly laid out in the Opinion filed November dates of availability to be deposed and furnish discovery responses. Docket, (See by discovery orders. Namely, Plaintiff was compelled to provide generally). The Plaintiff premises the bulk of his Appeal in this matter on the contention that S & B (See July 3, 2024 Order of Contempt). The procedural O z O u 1 6 q b a j Y See ( Docket, z q 1 q $ l was sanctioned in monetary nature only. (See February 1, 2024 Order). willfully failing to pay the sanctioned amount. ( generally). Upon Plaintiff's failure to do so, despite Court Orders compelling same, Plaintiff to as the "Order of Contempt"). In the Order of Contempt, the trial court again ordered the See July 3, 2024 Order hereinafter referred submissions, and subsequently issued an Order finding Plaintiff in contempt of court for and Sanctions. monetary sanctions to be paid as well as an additional $500.00 in attorney's fees for the a b = [3] = < : - E , Upon failure to pay the monetary sanction, Defendants filed a Motion for Contempt ; ? 3 . d E ? p . - 2 o e generally). The trial court held a hearing, considered all (See Docket, # ! = r $ E q q : ; l . o _ 6 9 _ : O : _ A a 1 r ; E : ' $ - 6 a - . - 3 - A o A 3 : E a q = ; R g - d U G 1 h ( u , ' g : b 3 A o , ' a - = - o ) q q E { o c c 3 l i i $ d e g g Y g " d = . ; ' 5 E = g = u ; o ? d $ A ' $ " ' 3 = ; ' = ) o A q A A 3 t f a a d r B *34 + o o Q / u wherein that Appeal remains ongoing. does not relate to any issues that would be considered in the trial. The Order of Contempt did not preclude evidence, testimony, or sanction Plaintiff in any way that would potentially opposing party. (See July 3, 2024 Order). Order of Contempt are wholly separate and apart for the merits of the case at hand. (See affect how the Plaintiff would present the case on the merits of his claims. The issues in the generally). Docket, limitations that are set out specifically in Pa. RA.P. 1701(c). = Pa. RA.P. 1701(a). j l # The Plaintiff eventually filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Order of Contempt, (a) General rule. -- Except as otherwise prescribed by these rules, after an Indeed Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1701 (a) states: However, Plaintiff fails to acknowledge the "otherwise prescribed by these rule" T ^ or other government unit may no longer proceed further in the matter. appeal is taken or review of a quasijudicial order is sought, the trial court p Q $ $ $ _ o < d b U b - ; q _ o . = \ ' ' h < : B b d - ' generally). (See Docket, The Order of Contempt 6 v o Y o L x o R d B . d > $ > t t : j In fact, Pa. R.A.P. 1701(c) o o u u o T l i # : P a q q q p o q e
J 8 8 specifically addresses appeals that are wholly separate and apart from the merits of the case. Pa. RA.P. 1701 goes on to state in relevant part: f I = Pa. R.A.P. 1701(c). c ) Limited to matters in dispute.-Where (c) only a particular item, claim, or T - ; ( " o o ( o t - E ) q v r government unit or by the appellate court or judge thereof as necessary or petition for review proceeding shall operate to prevent the trial court assessment adjudged in the matter is involved in an appeal, or in a to preserve the rights of the appellant. petition for review proceeding relating to a quasijudicial order, the appeal or other government unit from proceeding further with only such item, claim, or assessment, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court or o - A D [0] d = 3 5 . r = = 9 6 ; E 3 d s 1 ; 3 q 5 = H f *35 r m S E B ; ; n i l B + f r g 1 s j o E ( d g d o 5 9 l f 5 g I - r f E I + l m B = o 5 e 9 t o E < e a 9 g ; b o r - b o s : - g - d t E = , 6 g E a A t ; g E l = - o + - - 5 Q d o f + E l _ s " i r l E " l t s ; l ; = ? q H C h E - = r r - o - = 2 0 o - 9 = [6] = - h t o : the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to continue on the matter after his Notice of Appeal was filed regarding the Order of Contempt. However, the rules of appellate procedure direct Wachovia Bank, 966 A.2d 1148, 1151 (Pa. Super 2009), in support of his contention that the proceeding below can continue without prejudicing the rights of the party seeking the otherwise, as does the caselaw in our Commonwealth. Rosen v. Rosen, Just as the prevent appeals of collateral issues from delaying the resolution of the basic issues where nowhere is it contended that the resolution of the merits in Plaintiff's as in Id. case is impinged upon the merits on the Order of Contempt Appeal. Order specifically states: 520 Pa. 19, 24, 549 A.2d 561, 564 (1988). Similarly in this case, Rosen v. Rosen, underlying court did in Rosen, the trial court here proceeded in the case pursuant to Pa. interim." RA.P. 1701(c). (See July 30, 2024 Order attached hereto). The trial court's July 30, 2024 E The Plaintiff cites 210 Pa. Code Rule 1701(a) and In Re Estate of Considine v. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated, "[t]he purpose of Rule 1701(c) is to c # # , = - z L Y l N - _ t + l i N g q 3 = c N j _ _ c o o T c H , t E + j H t E c m h + - Z j " = 4 1 g e c T l - Z G + l l
J J *36 10. Plaintiff maintains that the jury trial must be continued due to the i g ' J i ' B g = = t = * + $ E q € g contempt appeal and that the trial court lacks jurisdiction based upon I : E s q the filing of the appeal. e * g - Y " E E * # X g q g 11. The contempt order on appeal does not preclude evidence, testimony, * from the case being reviewed. However, that is not what is stated. That statement was that "the appealability of an order directly implicates the jurisdiction of the court asked to quashed an appeal after discussing the appealability of various matters, due to that specific before them is appealable. made in reference to the Superior Court having jurisdiction to inquire whether an order appealability of the Order of Contempt. order not being a final order. We could only presume Plaintiff is pointing to the proposition In Re Estate of Considine v. Wachovia Bank, review the order," to support that such jurisdiction would extend to any other matter arising 966 A.2d 1148, 1151 (Pa. Super 2009). That issue was never raised nor did the trial court challenge the 1148, 1151 (Pa. Super 2009) in support of his position, that case the Superior Court (See July 30, 2024 Order attached hereto). c Wachovia Bank, In regard to Plaintiff citing v. In Re Estate of Considine 966 A.2d 12. The contempt order on appeal simply orders counsel fees in a sum 13. The Court finds that the filing of Plaintiffs Notice of Appeal does not q * # E E # or any issue related to the jury trial. certain that are due after the date of the jury trial. ^ preclude this Court from proceeding with the trial as scheduled. See Pa.R.A.P 1701(c). n N * * I $ # L g \ Y b I + * v L : P Y X E $ R p * S E - * E : * n e - \ : - Y E + + E E # * : P + * c - e ) S # $ E * $ * E n * N nature, it does not prevent the trial court from proceeding on the case when the issues are unrelated from the merits of the claims before the trial court. Pa. R.A.P. 1701(c). d - *37 Regardless of Plaintiffs Appeal of the Order of Contempt, due to its collateral o o u J @ D c ) O & v O O O m End of Opinion C L b o [3]