Pultegroup, Inc. v. Patrick McDermott Plastering

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 17, 2017·No. 2228 EDA 2015·Published

Opinion

J-A02014-17

NON -PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 PULTEGROUP, INC. A /K /A PULTE HOMES, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF INC. PENNSYLVANIA V.

PATRICK MCDERMOTT PLASTERING, LLC AND NASSAU CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC

V.

PAUL MCMENENY, DAVID GAHAN, AMERICA CONSTRUCTION, BASTOS - GOMES CONSTRUCTION, DEREK CARPENTRY, JGMG CONSTRUCTION, JOSE NOVIO CONSTRUCTION, JRV CONSTRUCTION, JULIO SALES T/A JULIO CONSTRUCTION, ACS CARPENTRY, INC., BOLA ELITE CONSTRUCTION, INC., DSD CARPENTRY, INC., EF CARPENTRY, INC., IRON CONSTRUCTION, INC., PATOS CONSTRUCTION CORP., AND VENTURA'S CARPENTRY, INC.

APPEAL OF: ACS CARPENTRY, INC.

Appellant No. 2228 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Dated June 15, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 2010 -08958

PULTEGROUP, INC. A /K /A PULTE HOMES, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF INC. PENNSYLVANIA V.

PATRICK MCDERMOTT PLASTERING, LLC AND NASSAU CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC. J-A02014-17

APPEAL OF: IRON CONSTRUCTION, INC.

No. 2229 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Dated June 15, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 2010 -08958

PULTEGROUP, INC. A /K /A PULTE HOMES, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF INC. PENNSYLVANIA V. PATRICK MCDERMOTT PLASTERING, LLC AND NASSAU CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC.

V.

-2 J-A02014-17

CONSTRUCTION CORP., AND VENTURA'S CARPENTRY, INC.

APPEAL OF: BASTOS -GOMES CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.

Appellant No. 2230 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Dated June 15, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 2010 -08958

PULTEGROUP, INC. A /K /A PULTE HOMES, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF INC. PENNSYLVANIA V.

PATRICK MCDERMOTT PLASTERING, LLC AND NASSAU CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC.

V.

APPEAL OF: BOLA ELITE CONSTRUCTION, INC.

No. 2231 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Dated June 15, 2015

-3 J-A02014-17

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 2010 -08958

PULTEGROUP, INC. A /K /A PULTE HOMES, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF INC. PENNSYLVANIA V.

PATRICK MCDERMOTT PLASTERING, LLC AND NASSAU CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC.

V.

APPEAL OF: DSD CARPENTRY, INC.

No. 2232 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Dated June 15, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 2010 -08958

BEFORE: OTT, J., RANSOM, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OTT, J.: Filed January 17, 2017

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

-4 J-A02014-17

Appellants, ACS Carpentry, Inc., Bastos -Gomes Construction Co., Bola

Elite Construction Co., Inc., DSD Carpentry, Inc., and Iron Construction,

Inc., appeal from the order entered on June 15, 2015, in the Court of

Common Pleas of Bucks County, granting the petitions for alternative service

of Nassau Construction Co., LLC. Because this appeal, prior to any service

and only as to the order granting alternative service, is taken from a non -

appealable order, we quash the appeal and remand this matter to the trial

court for further proceedings.

Appellants, jointly represented by the law firm of Rawle and

Henderson, are essentially challenging the form of service of original

process. By extension, they are challenging the court's personal jurisdiction.

In this appeal, they assert that the order in question is an appealable

collateral order. After a thorough review of the brief submitted by the

parties, the certified record, and relevant law, we are constrained to

disagree.

A collateral order is defined by the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate

Procedure as:

[A]n 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). Additionally, the collateral order doctrine is to be

construed narrowly. See generally In re Estate of Stricker, 977 A.2d

1115 (Pa. 2009).

-5 J-A02014-17

The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the proper

method of challenging personal jurisdiction and /or form or service of original

process is by preliminary objection. See Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(1).1 The

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide for interlocutory appeals

as of right from an order sustaining personal jurisdiction. See Pa.R.A.P.

311(b). Accordingly, if a party is aggrieved by the denial of preliminary

objections challenging personal jurisdiction or form or service, there is an

avenue to challenge that decision prior to entry of a final judgment.

Because Appellants' right to challenge the grant of alternative service and

the courts' exercise of personal jurisdiction are preserved through Pa.R.C.P.

1028(a)(1) and Pa.R.A.P. 311(b), those rights have not been postponed until

final judgment. Therefore, the order at issue is not an immediately

appealable collateral order. Accordingly, we quash this appeal.

Appeal quashed. This matter is remanded to the Court of Common

Pleas of Bucks County. Jurisdiction relinquished.

1 "Preliminary objections may be filed by any party to any pleading and are limited to the following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or the person of the defendant, improper venue, or improper form or service of a writ, summons or complaint." Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(1).

-6 J-A02014-17

Judgment Entered.

J seph D. Seletyn, Prothonotary

Date: 1/17/2017

-7

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI