Hatchigian, D. v. ABCO ( 2021 )

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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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