Hatchigian, D. v. ABCO

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: August 3, 2021
• Docket: 1412 EDA 2020
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A19010-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

DAVID HATCHIGIAN : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : ABCO, CHASE BANK USA, N.A., AND : No. 1412 EDA 2020 EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES :

Appeal from the Order Entered May 5, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): No. 180400158

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and COLINS, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED AUGUST 3, 2021

Appellant, David Hatchigian, purports to appeal pro se from four

Orders entered on May 5, 2020. We quash this appeal as interlocutory.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. Appellant

initiated this action against Appellees, ABCO, Chase Bank, USA, N.A.

(“Chase”), and Emerson Climate Technologies (“Emerson”) in the

Philadelphia municipal court to recover expenses he purportedly incurred in

connection with an allegedly defective compressor manufactured by

Emerson, sold by ABCO, and purchased by Appellant using a Chase credit

card.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A19010-21

The municipal court dismissed Appellant’s Complaint and ruled in favor

of Appellees. Appellant appealed to the court of common pleas and the

matter was placed in the arbitration program. On August 31, 2018,

Appellant filed an Amended Complaint against Appellees asserting various

breach warranty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence

claims, and alleging violation of numerous consumer protection and lending

laws. Emerson filed cross-claims against ABCO and Chase.

On May 31, 2019, the arbitration panel found in favor of Appellees and

dismissed Appellant’s Complaint. Appellant appealed the arbitration award.

On January 7, 2020, ABCO moved for Summary Judgment against

Appellant. In addition, on January 28, 2020, Chase moved for Summary

Judgment on Appellant’s claims and Emerson’s cross-claims.

On January 30, 2020, Appellant moved for Summary Judgment against

all Appellees on his claims.

On March 9, 2020, the trial court denied Chase’s Motion for Summary

Judgment as to Appellant’s claims.

On May 4, 2020, the trial court granted Summary Judgment in favor of

Chase on Emerson’s cross-claims. That same day, the court granted

Summary Judgment in favor of Emerson against Appellant and denied

Appellant’s Motion for Summary Judgment against all Appellees.

This appeal followed. Appellant challenges the Orders granting

Emerson’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Appellant, granting

ABCO’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Appellant, and granting

-2- J-A19010-21

Chase’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Emerson. Appellant also

challenges the Order denying his Motion for Summary Judgment against all

Appellees.

Before we reach the merits of Appellant’s claims, we consider whether

we have jurisdiction over this appeal.

Appellant has asserted in his Brief that this Court has jurisdiction over

his appeal pursuant to Rule 341. Appellant is mistaken.

Generally, “unless otherwise permitted by statute, only appeals from

final orders are subject to appellate review.” Commonwealth v. Sartin,

708 A.2d 121, 122 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citation omitted). See also Pa.R.A.P.

341(a) (“[A]n appeal may be taken as of right from any final order of a

government unit or trial court.”) Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure

341 defines a final order as follows:

(b) Definition of Final Order.--A final order:

(1) disposes of all claims and of all parties;

(2) (Rescinded);

(3) is entered as a final order pursuant to paragraph (c) of this rule[.]

(c) Determination of finality.--When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim or when multiple parties are involved, the trial court or other government unit may enter a final order as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims and parties only upon an express determination that an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution of the entire case. Such an order becomes appealable when entered. In the absence of such a determination and entry of a final order, any

-3- J-A19010-21

order or other form of decision that adjudicates fewer than all the claims and parties shall not constitute a final order. . . .

Pa.R.A.P. 341 (emphasis in original).

By definition, an order that does not dispose of all claims as to all

parties is interlocutory and not final. See Spuglio v. Cugini, 818 A.2d

1286, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2003); Pa.R.A.P. 341. The issue of finality impacts

our jurisdiction over the appeal. See In re Estate of Celia, 12 A.3d 374,

377 (Pa. Super. 2010). “[T]his Court has the power to inquire at any time,

sua sponte, whether an order is appealable.” Id. (brackets in original;

citations omitted).

The record reflects that, on March 9, 2020, the trial court denied

Chase’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Appellant. The court did not

subsequently enter any order resolving Appellant’s claims against Chase.1

Accordingly, Appellant’s claims against Chase are unresolved. Although the

court entered summary judgment in favor of Emerson and ABCO against

Appellant, and in favor of Chase on Emerson’s cross-claims, because

Appellant’s claims against Chase are outstanding, the appealed Orders

adjudicate fewer than all the claims and parties. Accordingly, this appeal is

interlocutory and we lack jurisdiction to consider the issues raised by

Appellant.

1 Appellant did not seek, and the trial court did not grant, a determination of

finality pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 341(c).

-4- J-A19010-21

Appeal quashed.2

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/3/2021

2 In light of our disposition we deny Emerson’s the Motion for Admission Pro

Hac Vice of Joseph DiRienzo as moot.

-5-