Valley Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Margarita Express, LLC

245 A.3d 1072 (Table)

VALLEY TRUCK CENTER, INC. v. MARGARITA EXPRESS, LLC and Angel E. Perez-Reynoso, and Austin Environmental, c/o Maine Trailer Registration

Appeal of: Austin Environmental

No. 2013 MDA 2019

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed December 15, 2020

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:

Austin Environmental appeals from the November 14, 2019 order granting appellee, Valley Truck Center, Inc.'s ("Valley Truck"), motion to amend the amount of the December 11, 2018 default judgment entered against appellant for unpaid towing and storage fees. ¹ For the following reasons, we affirm.

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

On August 20, 2018, [Valley Truck] commenced this action against defendants, Margarita Express, LLC ("Margarita"), Angel E. Perez-Reynoso ("Perez-Reynoso"), and [appellant] asserting claims for breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment. Valley Truck avers that Perez-Reynoso was the operator of a tractor owned by Margarita and a trailer owned by [appellant] that were involved in a single vehicle accident on Interstate Route 81 on June 15, 2018. It has alleged that the trailer overturned, causing its cargo to be strewn on the Interstate, and requiring the Pennsylvania State Police to contact Valley Truck to assist with the cleanup of the area of the Interstate by removing the rubbish from the Interstate, transporting the same in dumpsters to Keystone Sanitary Landfill, remov[ing] the vehicles (tractor and trailer) from the Interstate, and storing the same at its storage facility, awaiting further instruction from Margarita and [appellant].

Valley Truck claims that it contacted Margarita and [appellant] on numerous occasions to inquire as to what action should be taken with respect to their tractor, trailer, and property that remain[ed] stored at the facility of [Valley Truck] for an extended period of time, and that it also provided invoices to Margarita and [appellant] for the costs of cleanup, disposal, and storage of the vehicles and rubbish in the amount of $44,411.51. It submits that although demand has been made, no payment in full was received. Additionally, Valley Truck contends that storage costs continue to accrue at the rate of $200.00 per day ($100 tractor/$100 trailer) from June 17, 2018, until the property has been removed and/or this matter has been resolved. In its prayers for relief, it demands judgment in the amount of $56,411.51, as well as an additional $200.00 per day for storage fees together with reasonable attorney fees and any other relief that the Court deems reasonable.

[Appellant] was served with the Complaint by Deputy Sheriff Natalie George on August 24, 2018. Based upon [appellant's] failure to file a timely responsive pleading, Valley Truck forwarded a 10[-]day notice of its intent to enter a default judgment to [appellant] on November 21, 2018. In the absence of any reply, Valley Truck filed a default judgment against [appellant] in the amount of $82,013.56 on December 11, 2018.

Although Margarita and Perez-Reynoso mounted a defense by filing pleadings and participating in this litigation, [appellant] declined to do so, and Valley Truck ultimately filed an amended Writ of Execution against [appellant] in the amount of $86,697.69 on July 18, 2019. Almost two months later, and more than nine months after the entry of the default judgment against it, [appellant] filed a petition on September 16, 2019, seeking to strike or open the default judgment. Valley Truck opposed that petition, and following the completion of oral argument on October 22, 2019, Judge Thomas J. Munley entered an Order on October 25, 2019, denying [appellant's] petition to strike or open the default judgment.

At least three business days prior to November 14, 2019, Valley Truck served [appellant] with its "Motion to Amend Judgment Amount." Valley Truck's motion memorializes the earlier filings in this litigation, including the entry of the default judgment in the amount of $82,013.56 and Judge Munley's ruling denying [appellant's] petition to strike or open that judgment. It asserts that additional storage charges accrued subsequent to the date of that default judgment and until the time that the tractor and trailer were eventually removed from Valley Truck's storage facility. Based upon the daily storage charges set forth in Valley Truck's complaint and attached exhibit, Valley Truck attested that the total amount due and owing was $109,911.51, and sought to modify the previously entered judgment against [appellant] to reflect the final amount of $109,911.51 plus costs and statutory interest.

Trial court opinion, 4/29/20 at 2-4 (citations, internal quotation marks, and some brackets omitted).

On November 14, 2019, the trial court entered an order granting Valley Truck's motion to amend the default judgment from $82,013.56 to $109,911.51 to reflect the additional storage fees that had accrued as of that date. On November 18, 2019, Valley Truck filed a praecipe for writ of execution in the judgment amount of $109,911.51, plus statutory interest, poundage, and fees, for the total sum of $116,938.84. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on December 10, 2019. Thereafter, the trial court ordered appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). Appellant filed its timely Rule 1925(b) statement on January 7, 2020, and the trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on April 29, 2020.

On February 13, 2020, this court directed appellant to show cause, within ten days, as to why its appeal from the November 14, 2019 order amending the default judgment should be quashed as interlocutory, given that claims against the other defendants remained pending. ( See per curiam order, 2/13/20.) On February 27, 2020, appellant filed an untimely response to the rule to show cause order, arguing that the November 14, 2019 order was immediately appealable as an order affecting a judgment. On March 18, 2020, the rule to show cause order was discharged, and the issue was referred to this panel.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying [appellant's] petition to strike and/or open default judgment when proper service was not shown of the complaint upon [appellant] when [Valley Truck's] own complaint avers a different address than the address at which [appellant] was allegedly served; and when [appellant] provided undisputed evidence that the address at which service was allegedly completed was not the registered corporate office or principal place of business of [appellant?]

2. Whether the trial court erred in granting [Valley Truck's] motion to reassess damages without a hearing when the original amount of damages was determined to be for a sum certain, based upon

...