Reynolds, D. v. Consolidated Rail Corp. ( 2023 )

J-A17005-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
DAVID REYNOLDS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CONSOLIDATED RAIL :
CORPORATION, NORFOLK :
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND : No. 2807 EDA 2022
PENN CENTRAL CORPORATION A/K/A :
AMERICAN PREMIER UNDERWRITERS :
:
:
APPEAL OF: CONSOLIDATED RAIL :
CORPORATION :
Appeal from the Order Entered October 28, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): 210702545
DAVID REYNOLDS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
CONSOLIDATED RAIL :
CORPORATION, NORFOLK :
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND : No. 2811 EDA 2022
PENN CENTRAL CORPORATION A/K/A :
AMERICAN PREMIER UNDERWRITERS :
:
:
APPEAL OF: PENN CENTRAL :
CORPORATION A/K/A AMERICAN :
PREMIER UNDERWRITERS, INC. :
Appeal from the Order Entered October 28, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): 210702545
J-A17005-23
BEFORE: KING, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED AUGUST 22, 2023
Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) and Penn Central Corporation
a/k/a American Premier Underwriters, Inc. (APUI) (collectively, Defendants)
appeal from the October 28, 2022 order of the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County (trial court) granting reconsideration of its September 23,
2022 order dismissing without prejudice a civil action filed by David Reynolds
(Plaintiff). On appeal, all parties and the trial court agree that the trial court
was without jurisdiction to modify its prior order because more than 30 days
had passed since its entry. We thus vacate the trial court’s order granting
reconsideration and remand.
Because of our disposition, we need not give a full summary of the facts.
In July 2021, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants in the trial court.
Plaintiff sought damages under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), 45
U.S.C. §§ 51-60, alleging that he was exposed to excessive amounts of
asbestos while working for Defendants in Ohio from 1967 to 2004. After filing
its answer and new matter, Conrail moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s action based
on grounds of forum non conveniens, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(e). On September
23, 2022, the trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s action “without prejudice to refile
this action in Ohio or any other appropriate jurisdiction.”
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
-2-
J-A17005-23
On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a timely motion for
reconsideration requesting that the trial court amend the language of its order
to reflect Plaintiff’s original filing date so that the statute of limitations was
tolled as of that filing date. Conrail answered and opposed the motion, noting
that Plaintiff filed an action in Ohio in February 2022 but later voluntarily
dismissed its action. Nevertheless, on October 28, 2022, more than 30 days
after entry of its prior order, the trial court granted Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration, vacated its prior order and entered a new order adding
Plaintiff’s requested language that “[i]f this action is refiled within one-
hundred twenty (120) days of this Order, the filing date to be used for statute
of limitation purposes in the refiled action shall be July 30, 2021.”
Defendants both timely appealed.1 In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement,
Conrail asserted that the trial court erred in granting reconsideration more
than 30 days after entry of its prior order dismissing the action. In support,
Conrail argued that the trial court’s order contravened both Section 5505 of
the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S § 5505 (governing modification of orders), and
____________________________________________
1 Because APUI indicated in its notice of appeal that it joined in the appeal
filed by Conrail, this Court issued a show-cause order as to whether the
appeals should be consolidated as joint appeals. In its response, APUI averred
that it would not be filing a separate brief and did not object to consolidation.
Accordingly, this Court consolidated the appeals as joint appeals, designated
2807 EDA 2022 as the lead appeal, and directed APUI to file a formal averment
(after Conrail’s brief was filed) stating that it joins in Conrail’s brief, which it
did.
-3-
J-A17005-23
Gardner v. Conrail, 100 A.3d 280 (Pa. Super. 2014). The trial court agreed
with Defendants in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion that it “incorrectly granted”
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration because its order granting
reconsideration was entered over 30 days after entry of its prior order
dismissing the action. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/16/23, at 3. As the trial
court explained:
Here, this Court granted the underlying Motion to Dismiss by
issuing an Order on September 23, 2022. Therefore, this court
lost jurisdiction over its Order thirty (30) days later on October
23, 2022. When this Court subsequently granted Plaintiff’s Motion
for Reconsideration on October 27, 2022, it lacked jurisdiction
over the underlying September 23, 2022 Order. Therefore, this
Court incorrectly granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Id. We agree.2
Section 5505 of our Judicial Code provides as follows concerning
modification of orders: “Except as otherwise provided or prescribed by law, a
court upon notice to the parties may modify or rescind any order within 30
days after its entry, notwithstanding the prior termination of any term of court,
if no appeal from such order has been taken or allowed.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505.
____________________________________________
2 “The time within which a trial court may grant reconsideration of its orders
is a matter of law....” Manufacturers and Traders Trust Co. v. Greenville
Gastroenterology, SC, 108 A.3d 913, 917 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting
Estate of Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155, 158 (Pa. Super. 2002)). “For
questions of law, our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review
is plenary.” Id.-4-
J-A17005-23
In Gardner, the plaintiffs filed a FELA action against their former
employers in Philadelphia County. Because the plaintiffs lived and worked in
Blair County during their employment, the former employers moved to
transfer venue based on forum non conveniens under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1006(d)(1).
After the trial court granted the motion, the plaintiffs petitioned for
reconsideration. The trial court, however, did not rule on the petition within
the prescribed 30-day period, waiting until nearly two months had passed
before granting reconsideration, following which the former employers
appealed to argue that the trial court violated Section 5505 by granting
reconsideration more than 30 days after its order granting the motion for
reconsideration.
On appeal, we agreed with the former employers that the trial court
erred in granting reconsideration more than 30 days after entry of its prior
order. In so doing, we recognized that, “it is well-settled that a motion for
reconsideration, unless expressly granted within the thirty-day appeal period,
does not toll the time period for taking an appeal from a final, appealable
order.” See Gardner, 100 A.3d at 283 (citing Valley Forge Center
Associates v. Rib–It/K.P., Inc., 693 A.2d 242 (Pa. Super. 1997)). The
panel continued:
As we noted in Valley Forge, the “mere filing of a motion for
reconsideration ... is insufficient to toll the appeal period.” We
continued that “the 30–day appeal period is tolled only by a timely
order ‘expressly granting’ reconsideration” of the final appealable
order. Id. at 245. Concomitantly, “either the lapse of 30 days
beyond the date of entry of an original order, or the filing of a
-5-
J-A17005-23
notice of appeal will vitiate the jurisdiction of the trial court to
modify, alter, or otherwise proceed further in the matter.” Id.Thus, “If a trial court fails to grant reconsideration expressly within
the prescribed 30 days, it loses the power to act upon both the
petition [for reconsideration] and the original order.” Id.; see
also PNC Bank, N.A. v. Unknown Heirs, 929 A.2d 219, 226
(Pa. Super. 2007). These principles are premised upon application
of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505, which is invoked by [the former employers]
in this case, and provides that “a court upon notice to the parties
may modify or rescind any order within 30 days after its entry ...
if no appeal from such an order has been taken or allowed.
Gardner, 100 A.3d at 283. Accordingly, we held that the trial court lost
jurisdiction to reconsider its order granting the motion to transfer after 30
days had lapsed from its entry. Id.Plaintiff’s case is analogous to Gardner. Plaintiff filed a FELA against
his former employers, Defendants, in Philadelphia County, even though he
lived and worked in Ohio. When Defendants moved to dismiss based on forum
non conveniens, the trial court granted the motion with prejudice to Plaintiff
filing his action in Ohio or another appropriate jurisdiction. Because the trial
court’s order was entered on September 23, 2022, any order granting
reconsideration needed to be entered on or before October 24, 2022.3 Here,
however, the trial court did not grant reconsideration until October 28, 2022.4
____________________________________________
3 The last day of the computation period fell on October 23, 2022, which was
a Sunday and, therefore, excluded from computation. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908
(“Whenever the last day of any such period shall fall on Saturday or
Sunday…such day shall be omitted from the computation.”).
4We note that the trial court’s order was dated October 27, 2022, but not
entered on the docket until the next day, October 28, 2022. Because the 30-
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-6-
J-A17005-23
As a result of applying Section 5505 and Gardner, we conclude that the trial
court was without power to reconsider its September 23, 2022 order granting
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Gardner, supra.5
Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s October 28, 2022 order granting
reconsideration and remand for the trial court to reinstate its prior September
23, 2022 order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice
based on forum non conveniens.
Order vacated. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
____________________________________________
day period for reconsideration expired on October 24, 2022, this one-day
delay in entry of the order has no effect on our disposition.
5 For his part, Plaintiff concedes that “both statute and case law support
[Defendants’] position.” Plaintiff’s Brief at 3. Nevertheless, Plaintiff goes on
to urge this Court to take judicial notice that “despite making multiple
assurances to the contrary in their Motion to Dismiss based on forum non
conveniens [Defendants] now appears to be positioning themselves to
attempt to use the dismissal from Philadelphia as a defense in [Plaintiff’s]
already refiled case in Ohio.” Id. at 3-4. As a result of Plaintiff’s request,
Defendants have filed a reply brief sharply disputing many of Plaintiff’s
representations in support of his request.
A “judicial noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that
it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial
court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources
whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Pa. R.E. 201(b). Disputed
questions of fact are not within the domain of judicial notice. See HYK Const.
Co. v. Smithfield Twp., 8 A.3d 1009, 1017 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (citation
omitted). While the parties agree that the trial court erred in granting
reconsideration, Defendants’ reply brief shows that there remains
considerable disagreement between the parties about the timeliness of
Plaintiff’s subsequent action filed in Ohio. That being the case, we decline
Plaintiff’s request to take judicial notice about its pending out-of-state action.
-7-
J-A17005-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/22/2023
-8-