Pine Run Midstream v. Buffalo Valley

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 18, 2024
• Docket: 915 WDA 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A09016-24 & J-A09017-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

PINE RUN MIDSTEAM, LLC : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : BUFFALO VALLEY, LTD., ARMSTRONG : CEMENT & SUPPLY CORP., AND : WINFIELD RESOURCES, LLC : : Appellants : No. 915 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment Entered March 7, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Civil Division at No(s): 2019-11122

BUFFALO VALLEY, LTD. AND : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ARMSTRONG CEMENT & SUPPLY : PENNSYLVANIA CORP. : : Appellants : : v. : : : PINE RUN MIDSTREAM, LLC : No. 916 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment Entered March 7, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Civil Division at No(s): 2019-11150

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: June 18, 2024

In these separately filed/docketed but related lawsuits for declaratory

judgments,1 Buffalo Valley, Ltd. and Armstrong Cement & Supply Co. appeal ____________________________________________

1 Because these two appeals involve the same parties and issue, we dispose

of them in one Memorandum, even though the appeals are not consolidated. J-A09016-24 & J-A09017-24

from the judgments entered in favor of Pine Run Midstream, LLC, 2 after the

trial court denied the Appellants’ “Motions for Extension of Time to File Post-

Trial Motion Nunc Pro Tunc.” We affirm.

After four days of trial, on April 19, 2023, the trial court issued a pair of

nearly identical opinions and non-jury decisions, granting declaratory relief to

Pine Run Midstream, LLC in both actions. The court determined that Pine Run

had not violated the terms of its natural-gas-pipeline easements through the

properties of Buffalo Valley, Ltd. and Armstrong Cement & Supply Co.

(“Appellants”).

Appellants, who were awaiting the non-jury decision, checked the Butler

County court’s website but did not read it correctly. They incorrectly assumed

that the Prothonotary had entered final judgments against them. Thus,

instead of seeking post-trial relief from the trial court under Rule of Civil

Procedure 227.1 within ten days, on May 12, 2023, they appealed to this

Court. Pine Run moved to quash those appeals, because no judgment was

entered below. Appellants then praeciped to discontinue their appeals.

____________________________________________

2 Appellants’ notice of appeal was premature, because they appealed from trial

court orders denying their request for nunc pro tunc relief. However, final judgments had not been entered in the trial court at that time.

In general, “the entry of judgment is a prerequisite to [this Court’s] exercise of jurisdiction.” Mackall v. Fleegle, 801 A.2d 577, 580 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citations omitted). Nevertheless, Pine Run Midstream filed a praecipe to enter judgments in its favor on March 7, 2024. Thus, we will proceed to entertain this appeal, as if Appellants had properly appealed from that entry of judgment.

-2- J-A09016-24 & J-A09017-24

Next, on May 30, 2023, Appellants requested permission from the trial

court to file post-trial motions, nunc pro tunc. The trial court issued orders at

both dockets denying that request. Appellants appealed from those orders.

They raise the same issue in both appeals:

Whether the trial court erred by failing to permit the filing of post- trial motions nunc pro tunc where the Prothonotary appeared to have entered judgment on the online docket simultaneously with the entry of the final opinion and order, thereby divesting the trial court of jurisdiction before Appellants had the opportunity to file post-trial motions.

Appellants’ Briefs at 4.

The crux of Appellants’ argument is that the Prothonotary entered final

judgments, rather than simply docketing the April 19th non-jury decisions.

See id. at 18-25. The trial court found that the record and the docket entries

did not support Appellant’s factual claim that the Prothonotary prematurely

entered final judgments. In fact, the trial court found that final judgments

still had not been entered in these cases, at the time of Appellants’ motion

for nunc pro tunc relief. Our review of the record supports that finding.

Indeed, the trial court has fully disposed of Appellants’ claim of error in

its well-reasoned and detailed Rule 1925(a) Opinion. See Trial Court Opinion,

9/29/23 (filed at Civil Division No. 2019-11122). The learned President Judge

S. Michael Yeager of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County expounded

upon this Court’s precedents concerning appeals taken prior to seeking post-

trial relief.

-3- J-A09016-24 & J-A09017-24

The trial court thoroughly analyzed the extraordinary-circumstances

standard that Appellants needed to satisfy to file post-trial motions, nunc pro

tunc. The court explained why Appellants did not meet that standard. In

particular, the trial court observed that the only judgment the Prothonotary

entered pertained to Winfield Resources, LLC, not the Appellants; thus,

Appellants reliance upon the online docket entry was misplaced. We adopt

the opinion of the trial court as our own.

The parties are directed to attach a copy of President Judge Yeager’s

1925(a) Opinion in all future proceedings concerning these lawsuits. Based

upon the foregoing and the reasoning in trial court’s opinion, we affirm the

orders denying Appellants’ “Motions for Extension of Time to File Post-Trial

Motion Nunc Pro Tunc.”

Orders affirmed.

Judgments affirmed.

6/18/2024

-4-