Doe, J. v. Hand and Stone

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: February 15, 2023
• Docket: 1510 EDA 2022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A05025-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

JANE DOE #1, JANE DOE #2, JANE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DOE #3 : PENNSYLVANIA : Appellants : : v. : : HAND AND STONE FRANCHISE : CORPORATION, RUFFENACH, G., : LLC, T/A HAND & STONE : PHOENIXVILLE-OAKS, CATHERINE : RUFFENACH & GERARD RUFFENACH, : W/H STEVEN M. WALDMAN AND : STEVEN WALDMAN MASSAGE : No. 1510 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered May 18, 2022, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division at No(s): 190804964.

JANE DOE #1, JANE DOE #2, JANE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DOE #3 : PENNSYLVANIA : Appellants : : v. : : HAND AND STONE FRANCHISE : CORPORATION, RUFFENACH, G., : LLC, T/A HAND & STONE : PHOENIXVILLE-OAKS, CATHERINE : RUFFENACH & GERARD RUFFENACH, : W/H STEVEN M. WALDMAN AND : STEVEN WALDMAN MASSAGE : No. 1511 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered May 18, 2022, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division at No(s): 190804964.

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J. J-A05025-23

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 15, 2023

Plaintiffs, three Jane Does, filed this personal injury action against

numerous defendants claiming they were sexually assaulted during a

massage. They appeal from the orders granting summary judgment to

Ruffenach, G., LLC, t/a Hand and Stone Phoenixville-Oaks Spa; Gerard

Ruffenach; and Catherine Ruffenach (docketed at 1510 EDA 2022) and to

Hand and Stone Franchise Corporation (docket at 1511 EDA 2022).

Previously, the plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against two other

defendants, Steven M. Waldman and his business entity, Steven Waldman

Massage. The issue of damages remains against these two defendants. As

a result, the summary judgment orders do not constitute final orders as to all

parties and all claims, and we lack jurisdiction to address these appeals.

The “appealability of an order goes the jurisdiction of the Court . . .

review[ing] the order.” Beltran v. Piersody, 748 A.2d 715, 717 (Pa. Super.

2000). “Neither party has raised this issue; however, it is well-settled that

this Court may raise the issue of our jurisdiction sua sponte.” Funk v.

Empfield, 281 A.3d 315, 317 (Pa. Super. 2022). We do so.

“Jurisdiction is purely a question of law; the appellate standard of review

is de novo, and the scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Merced,

265 A.3d 786, 789 (Pa. Super. 2021).

In Pennsylvania, “an appeal properly lies only from a final order unless

otherwise permitted by statute.” Indiana Cnty. Hosp. Auth. v. McCarl's

Plumbing & Heating Co., 496 A.2d 767, 768 (Pa. Super. 1985).

-2- J-A05025-23

Here, the unnamed plaintiffs obtained a default judgment on liablity

against Waldman and his business. Subsequently, the trial court granted

summary judgment to Ruffenach, G., LLC; the Ruffenaches; and Hand and

Stone Franchise Corporation on all counts. The plaintiffs moved for

reconsider, but, before the trial court ruled on their motion, they appealed.

No trial on damages against Waldman and his business occurred.

Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1037(b)(1),(2), the Office of

Judicial Records of Philadelphia County may only assess damages following a

default judgment when the damages are for a sum certain. Otherwise, a trial

on damages is required.

Because this is a sexual-assault case, the plaintiffs’ damages for pain

and suffering and emotional anguish are uncertain sums that a jury or the trial

court must find, in order to resolve all claims against all parties. The court of

common pleas has yet to adjudicate the damages claims against Waldman

and his business.

As such, the appealed-from, summary-judgment orders are not final

orders that “dispose[d] of all claims and of all parties.” Pennsylvania Rule of

Appellate Procedure 341(b)(1). Also, they are not appealable, interlocutory

orders under Pa.R.A.P. 311 or collateral orders under Pa.R.A.P. 313. The

appealed-from orders are interlocutory orders, over which this Court has no

appellate jurisdiction.

Appeals quashed.

-3- J-A05025-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 2/15/2023

-4-