Williams v. Carnuntum Assocs., L.P.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered October 22, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): No. 190402221, 181100389

BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

BOWES, J.

2

Susan Williams appeals from the orders that granted summary judgment to defendants Carnuntum Associates, L.P., Acme Markets, Inc., Center Point Place Associates, L.P., and Westover Property Management Company (collectively "Appellees") in these consolidated premises liability actions. Upon review, we quash the appeal at 2208 EDA 2020 as interlocutory and affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Appellees at 2210 EDA 2020.

The trial court offered the following summary of the background of these cases.

On November 6, 2018, [Ms. Williams] filed a complaint naming Carnuntum Associates, L.P., Acme Markets Inc. as defendants under docket number 181100389. In the complaint [Ms Williams] claimed she suffered injuries resulting from a slip and fall while on [Appellees'] property on October 10 2017, due to [Appellees'] negligence. On April 15, 2019 [Ms. Williams] filed a complaint for negligence under docket number 190402221 relating to the same slip and fall event naming as defendants Devon Square Shopping Center Associates, Center Point Place Associates, LP, and Westover Property Management Company. [Ms. Williams] also included Carnuntum Associates, L.P., Acme Markets Inc. as defendants in this complaint.

On September 6, 2019, Appellees filed a motion to consolidate these separate actions on grounds that they arose from the same factual allegations, same transaction, and same occurrence. On October 2, 2019, the Honorable Denis Cohen granted Appellees' motion to consolidate for purposes of discovery and trial under 181100389. On November 14, 2019, Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment and on December 9, 2019, [Ms. Williams] filed a response. On January 10, 2020, th[e trial] court dismissed Appellees['] motion for summary judgment as premature. On September 16, 2020, Appellees filed a second motion for summary judgment. [Ms. Williams] never filed any formal response to this motion. On October 22, 2020, the [trial] court issued two separate identical orders granting [Appellees']

3

motion for summary judgment docketed under cases 181100389 and 190402221.

Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/21, at 1-2 (cleaned up).

Ms. Williams filed a motion for reconsideration at each of the case numbers, acknowledging that she had failed to re-file her summary judgment response after Appellees re-filed their motion. She asked the trial court to clarify whether it took the prior response into consideration in granting the motions, and, if not, to re-evaluate Appellees' motions upon consideration of the prior responses. See Motion for Reconsideration (190402221), 10/29/20, at ¶¶ 9-17. Appellees responded, opposing consideration of the previous response and alternatively arguing that consideration of it would not produce a different result.

The trial court denied reconsideration at one docket, Ms. Williams filed notices of appeal at both dockets, then the trial court denied reconsideration at the second docket. Thereafter, both Ms. Williams and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. This Court subsequently consolidated the two appeals, which are now ripe for disposition.

Before we delve into the issues raised by Ms. Williams, we consider whether both of these appeals are properly before us. Appellees contend that the order granting summary judgment in case 190402221 is not final and appealable because it does not dispose of all claims and all parties. See Appellees' brief at 13-14. Specifically, Appellees state that Ms. Williams's claim against Devon Square Shopping Center Associates remains pending

4

because damages have yet to be assessed upon the default judgment that was entered against it on liability only. See id. at 13; Praecipe to Enter Default Judgment (190402221), 9/4/19, at unnumbered 2. Ms. Williams did not file a reply brief addressing Appellees' contentions.

It is well-settled that "[i]n this Commonwealth, an appeal may only be taken from: 1) a final order or one certified by the trial court as final; 2) an interlocutory order as of right; 3) an interlocutory order by permission; or 4) a collateral order." Estate of Considine v. Wachovia Bank, 966 A.2d 1148, 1151 (Pa.Super. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). From our review of the certified record, it does not appear that any of those bases for jurisdiction exists as to case 190402221.

A final order is one that "disposes of all claims and of all parties." Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1). With the claim against Devon Square Shopping Center Associates unresolved, the trial court's summary judgment order herein does not dispose of all claims and of all parties. Nor does the order include a determination of finality by the trial court pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(3) and (c). Hence, the order granting Appellees' motion is not a final order in case 190402221.

The order likewise is not an appealable interlocutory order. Orders granting summary judgment as to fewer than all defendants are not among the orders immediately appealable as of right enumerated in Pa.R.A.P. 311. Nor did Ms. Williams seek permission to appeal the order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 312.

5

Finally, the order concluding that Appellees are entitled to judgment as a matter of law is not an immediately-appealable collateral order. "A collateral order is an order separable from 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). The order here resolves the underlying cause of action, not an issue separate...