Case Information
NON -PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 PULTEGROUP, INC. A /K /A PULTE HOMES, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF INC. PENNSYLVANIA
V.
PATRICK MCDERMOTT PLASTERING, LLC LLC
AMERICA CONSTRUCTION, T/A OF: ACS
Appellant
AND NASSAU CONSTRUCTION CO.,
v.
PAUL MCMENENY, DAVID GAHAN,
AMERICA CONSTRUCTION, BASTOS -
GOMES CONSTRUCTION, DEREK
CARPENTRY, JGMG CONSTRUCTION,
JOSE NOVIO CONSTRUCTION, JRV
CONSTRUCTION, JULIO SALES T/A JULIO
CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
BOLA ELITE CONSTRUCTION, INC., DSD
CARPENTRY, INC., EF CARPENTRY, INC.,
IRON CONSTRUCTION, INC., PATOS IRON CONSTRUCTION, INC. ACS
J-A02014-17
CONSTRUCTION CORP., AND VENTURA'S
APPEAL OF: BASTOS -GOMES
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Appellant No. 2230 EDA 2015 Appeal Dated June 15, 2015 BOLA ELITE CONSTRUCTION, INC. the Order
J-A02014-17
In the Court of Common Pleas Bucks County
Civil Division at No(s): 2010 -08958 DSD CARPENTRY, 2015
BEFORE: OTT, J., RANSOM, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
Filed January 17, JUDGMENT ORDER BY OTT, J.: * Former Justice specially assigned the Superior Court.
J-A02014-17
Appellants, ACS Carpentry, Inc., Bastos -Gomes Construction Co., Bola Elite Construction Co., Inc., DSD Carpentry, Inc., and Iron Construction, Inc., appeal from the order entered on June 15, 2015, in the Court of Common of County, granting the petitions for alternative service of Nassau Construction Co., LLC. Because this appeal, prior to any service and only as to the order granting alternative service, is taken from a non appealable order, we quash the appeal and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
Appellants, jointly represented by firm Rawle and the law Henderson, are essentially challenging the form of service of original process. By extension, they are challenging the court's personal jurisdiction. In this appeal, they assert that the order in question is an appealable collateral order. After a thorough review of the brief submitted by the parties, the certified record, and relevant law, we are constrained to disagree.
A collateral order is defined by the Pennsylvania Rules Appellate Procedure as:
[A]n order separable and collateral to the main cause of action where the right involved is too important to be denied review and the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost.
Pa.R.A.P. 313(b). Additionally, the collateral order doctrine is be construed narrowly. See generally re Estate of Stricker, 977 A.2d (Pa. 2009).
J-A02014-17
The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the proper method of challenging personal jurisdiction and /or form or service of original process is by preliminary objection. See Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(1).1 The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide for interlocutory appeals as of right an order sustaining personal jurisdiction. See Pa.R.A.P. 311(b). Accordingly, if a party is aggrieved by the denial of preliminary objections challenging personal jurisdiction or form or service, there is an avenue to challenge that decision prior to entry of a final judgment. Because Appellants' right to challenge the grant of alternative service and the courts' exercise of personal jurisdiction are preserved through Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(1) and Pa.R.A.P. 311(b), those rights have not been postponed until final judgment. Therefore, the order at issue is not an immediately appealable collateral order. Accordingly, we quash this appeal.
Appeal quashed. This matter is remanded to the Court of Common County. Jurisdiction relinquished. "Preliminary objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited the following grounds: (1) lack jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or the person of the defendant, improper venue, or improper form or service of a writ, summons or complaint." Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(1).
J-A02014-17
Judgment Entered.
J seph D. Seletyn,
Prothonotary
Date: 1/17/2017
