Jacks Auto Parts Sales, Inc. v. MJ Auto Body & Repair

305 A.3d 162

JACKS AUTO PARTS SALES, INC.

v.MJ AUTO BODY AND REPAIR,

LLC and Mark Ritaldato

Appeal of: Amazon.com Services, Inc., Amazon Flex, Amazon.com DEDC LLC, Amazon, Amazon Corporation, Amazon Fulfillment Services Inc., Amazon Logistics, Inc., Amazon Services LLC and Amazon Inc.

No. 1946 EDA 2022

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued May 16, 2023

Filed October 30, 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered July 27, 2022, In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No(s): 211101194, Joshua H. Roberts, J.

MaryAnn Almeida, Seattle, WA, for appellant.

Michael J. O’Brien, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Drew Salaman, Philadelphia, for appellee.

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

OPINION BY NICHOLS, J.:

Appellants Amazon.com Services, Inc., Amazon Flex, Amazon.com DEDC LLC, Amazon, Amazon Corporation, Amazon Fulfillment Services Inc., Amazon Logistics, Inc., Amazon Services LLC, and Ama- zon Inc. (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the order denying their petition to open a default judgment entered against Appellants in favor of Appellee Jacks Auto Parts Sales, Inc. (Jacks) in the amount of $42,621.49. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of this matter as follows:

Jacks … initiated this landlord/tenant action in the Philadelphia Municipal Court in August 2021.¹ On September 16, 2021, Jacks obtained a default judgment in the amount of $31,812.82 against Defendants MJ Auto Body & Repair, LLC and Mark Ritaldato. On November 15, 2021, Jacks transferred the default judgment to the Court of Common Pleas and filed writs of execution against numerous Amazon entities. The specific Amazon entities named are as follows: Amazon, Amazon Corporation, Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., Amazon Logistics, Inc., Amazon Services, LLC, Amazon, Inc., Amazon, LLC, Amazon.com Services, Inc., Amazon Flex, and Amazon.com DEDC, LLC (collectively [Appellants]). Jacks, via the Sheriff, served [Appellants] at 2400 Weccacoe Avenue upon James Russo, who was identified in the sheriff's Affidavit/Return of Service as the person in charge. Jacks later served interrogatories in aid of execution upon all the same entities. When [Appellants] did not respond to the interrogatories, Jacks obtained a default judgment against [Appellants] on December 21, 2021[,] pursuant to Pa. R.Civ.P, 3146. Thereafter, Jacks filed a motion for an assessment of damages hearing. No one appeared at the assessment of damages hearing on behalf of [Appellants], and, on February 16, 2022, this court entered an order assessing damages in favor of Jacks and against [Appellants] in the amount of $42,621,49. On April 25, 2022, [Appellants], through counsel, filed the petition to open and/or strike the default judgment, and [Appellants] also filed an emergency motion to stay the writ of execution. This court granted the emergency motion and stayed further execution until resolution of the petition to open and/or strike. At the oral argument, [Appellants’ counsel] conceded that the default judgmentand the entry of the default judgment complied with all of the applicable rules. Stated another way, while [Appellants] did not specifically waive [their] argument that the default judgment should be stricken, [Appellants] essentially conceded Jacks had properly entered the default judgment. [Appellants] then proceeded with its argument that the court should open the default judgment, based on improper service and that [Appellants] had complied with the three-part equitable test for opening default judgments.

With respect to service, [Appellants] did not dispute that an Amazon entity operated out of a facility at 2400 Weccacoe Avenue. [Appellants] did not dispute that James Russo worked for an Amazon entity at 2400 Weccacoe Avenue, although [Appellants] did not concede that Mr. Russo worked for one of the named Amazon garnishees[/Appellants]. Amazon did not dispute that Mr. Russo was a manager at 2400 Weccacoe Avenue. [Appellants] did not dispute that Mr. Russo received service of the interrogatories at 2400 Weccacoe Avenue. It is unclear what Mr. Russo did with the interrogatories when he received them, and it is unclear what happened with all of the other legal papers Jacks served on the Amazon entities at 2400 Weccacoe Avenue.

Following the hearing, this court determined Jacks had properly served [Appellants] at a regular place of business upon a manager and/or a person then in charge. The court further concluded, upon balancing the equities, that [Appellants] failed to satisfy the three-part test for opening a default judgment. Thus, this court denied the petition.

Trial Ct. Op., 9/23/22, at 2-4 (some formatting altered). Appellants filed a timely appeal, and both the trial court and Appellants complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellants raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Did the [trial court] err in denying [Appellants’ petition] to open the default judgment, where it lacked jurisdiction to enter that judgment because [Appellants] had never been served with the underlying writs of execution?

2. Did the [trial court] abuse its discretion in denying [Appellants’ petition] to open the default judgment, where [Appellants] timely sought relief, have a complete defense to the underlying claim, and explained the reasonable cause for its lack of objection in advance of having the default judgment entered against them?

Appellants’ Brief at 5.

[1–4] Our standard of review regarding the denial of a petition to open a default judgment is as follows:

It is well settled that a petition to open a default judgment is an appeal to the equitable powers of the court, and absent an error of law or a clear, manifest abuse of discretion, it will not be disturbed on appeal. An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court, in reaching its conclusions, overrides or misapplies the law, or exercises judgment which is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.

To succeed on a petition to open a default judgment, a moving party must show: (1) the petition to open or strike was promptly filed; (2) the default can be reasonably explained or excused; and (3) there is a meritorious defense to the underlying claim. Also, as a petition to open a default judgment is an appeal to the equitable powers of the court, where the equities warrant opening a defaultjudgment, this Court will not hesitate to find an abuse of discretion.

AUG Promotions ?. Parkway Pub., Inc., 834 A.2d 613, 615-16 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc) (citations omitted and formatting altered). Further, the party petitioning to open a judgment bears the burden of establishing such relief. See id.

[5–7] Additionally, this Court has explained:

[A] court is also to balance the equities when considering whether to grant a petition to open a default judgment. This Court has recognized that where some showing has been made with regard to each part of the test, a court should not blinder itself and examine each part as though it were a watertight compartment. A court should, instead, consider each part in light of all the circumstances and equities of the case. Where the equities weigh strongly in favor of granting the petition to open, this Court will find an abuse of discretion in denying such a petition.

Id. at 618 (citations omitted and formatting altered).²

[8–10] "However, where the party seeking to open a judgment asserts that service was improper, a court must address this issue first before considering any other factors." Cintas Corp, ?. Lee's Cleaning Services, Inc., 549 Pa. 84, 700 A.2d 915, 916 (1997) (citations omitted); see also Century Sur. Co. ?. Essington Auto Center, LLC, 140 A.3d 46, 53-54 (Pa. Super. 2016) (reiterating that "we need not [] engage in the [three-factor] analysis if the party seeking to open the judgment has not received valid service or notice of the proceedings" (citations omitted)). "If valid service has not been made, then the judgment should be opened because the court has no jurisdiction over the [party] and is without power to enter a judgment …." Cintas Corp,, 700 A.2d at 916 (citation omitted). "In making this determination, a court can consider facts not before it at the time the judgment was entered." Id. (citations omitted).

[11–14] Garnishment actions are defined as follows:

Garnishment is a proceeding wherein the judgment creditor seeks to determine whether the garnishee owes a debt to the judgment debtor, or has property of the judgment debtor in his possession. The garnishment proceedings starts with service upon the garnishee of a writ of execution and interrogatories. The object of the interrogatories is to determine whether the suspected debt exists. The judgment previously obtained by the judgment creditor works an equitable assignment of the debt owed to the judgment debtor to the extent necessary to satisfy the judgment[,] and[] the judgment creditor stands in the same position vis a vis the garnishee as would the judgment debtor. After garnishment, the only obligations upon the garnishee are to answer the interrogatories and to notify the judgment debtor, by registered or certified mail at his last known address, of the impending garnishment proceedings.

Wheatcroft ?. Smith, 239 Pa.Super. 27, 362 A.2d 416, 419 (1976) (footnotes omitted). "Garnishment is a remedy created to enable a judgment creditor to reach assets of [its] debtor held by a stranger and is the means by which a creditor collects his debt out of property of the debtor in the hands of a third party." Brown ?. Candelora, 708 A.2d 104, 107 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Further,

[a]ny person may be a garnishee and shall be deemed to have possession of property of the defendant if the person

(1) owes a debt to the defendant;

(2) has property of the defendant in his or her custody, possession or control[.]

Pa.R.Civ.P. 3101(b)(1)-(2). Execution shall be commenced by filing a praecipe for a writ of...