K.G. v. Lechene, E.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: April 29, 2025
• Docket: 749 WDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A29017-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

K.G., BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENT : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF AND LEGAL GUARDIAN SAVANNA : PENNSYLVANIA GREEN : : : v. : : : ELIZABETH A. LECHENE AND TRI- : No. 749 WDA 2024 COUNTY TRANSPORTATION, INC. : : : APPEAL OF: ELIZABETH A. LECHENE :

Appeal from the Order Entered May 23, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Civil Division at No(s): 2023-4227

BEFORE: OLSON, J., LANE, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LANE, J.: FILED: April 29, 2025

Elizabeth A. Lechene (“Lechene”) appeals from the order denying her

motion to stay civil proceedings pending the outcome of her criminal matter.

For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal as moot.1

The facts of this matter are well known to the parties. See Trial Court

Opinion, 8/16/24, at 1-6. Briefly, this appeal stems from an August 2022

motor vehicle accident that resulted in the instant civil lawsuit and five criminal

charges filed against Lechene for, inter alia, driving under the influence

____________________________________________

1 We note that “[a]n order denying a motion to stay generally is considered

interlocutory and not appealable unless it satisfies the collateral order doctrine.” Keesee v. Dougherty, 230 A.3d 1128, 1131-32 (Pa. Super. 2020). We need not address whether Lechene has established the elements of a collateral order, however, as we dismiss this appeal on other grounds. J-A29017-24

(“DUI”) — general impairment.2 The parties agree that Lechene initially

enrolled into the Cambria County accelerated rehabilitative disposition

(“ARD”) program for first time offenders, that would have allowed dismissal

of the charges if she completed the program.

In April 2024, the criminal case was still ongoing. At the same time, in

this civil case, the pleadings had been closed, and the parties began discovery.

On April 16, 2024, Lechene filed a motion to stay the civil proceedings,

arguing: (1) she would be forced to participate in discovery in the civil case in

violation of her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because of

the pending criminal case against her; and (2) a stay would protect her rights

and promote full and complete discovery. The trial court denied the motion.

Lechene thereafter filed a notice of appeal, and both she and the trial court

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Lechene raises the following issue for our review: “Did the trial court

abuse its discretion in denying [Lechene’s] motion to stay civil proceedings,

thereby stripping her of her rights against self-incrimination under the United

States Constitution and Pennsylvania Constitution and prejudicing her ability

to defend herself in the civil proceedings?” Lechene’s Brief at 7 (unnecessary

capitalization omitted).

Lechene argues that the trial court improperly denied her motion to stay

the civil proceedings. At this juncture, we note that this panel directed the ____________________________________________

2 See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1).

-2- J-A29017-24

trial court to provide a written statement confirming the status of Lechene’s

criminal case at docket number CP-11-CR-0000832-2023, as well as any

admission into the Cambria County ARD program. The trial court confirmed

that on January 24, 2025, Lechene pleaded nolo contendere to DUI — general

impairment and did not enter the Cambria County ARD program. In addition,

the Commonwealth withdrew the remaining four charges. Lechene received

a sentence of six months’ probation.

This Court has explained:

Generally, an actual claim or controversy must be present at all stages of the judicial process for the case to be actionable or reviewable . . .. If events occur to eliminate the claim or controversy at any stage in the process, the case becomes moot. An issue can become moot during the pendency of an appeal due to an intervening change in the facts of the case or due to an intervening change in the applicable law. An issue before a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect.

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Co. v. Butler, 868 A.2d 574, 577 (Pa. Super. 2005)

(citations and quotation marks omitted).

Here, Lechene entered a nolo contendere plea, received a sentence, and

thus has resolved her criminal case. Accordingly, this Court cannot enter an

order that has any legal force or effect regarding her issue raised on appeal.

See id. Therefore, we dismiss Lechene’s appeal as moot.

Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

-3- J-A29017-24

4/29/2025

-4-