Ferguson, J. v. Stengle, L.

J-A28034-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JOHN FERGUSON : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
LINDA J. STENGLE, ESQUIRE, : No. 3623 EDA 2016
INDIVIDUALLY STENGLE LAW, THE :
ARRAS GROUP, INC., AND ROBERT :
MADSEN :
Appeal from the Order October 12, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): 150302491
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JANUARY 19, 2018
Appellant, John Ferguson, appeals from the October 12, 2016 Order
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County sustaining the
Preliminary Objections filed by Appellees, Linda J. Stengle, Esquire
(“Stengle”), Stengle Law, The Arras Group, Inc. (collectively, “Stengle
Law”), and Robert Madsen (“Madsen”), and transferring this case to
Montgomery County. After careful review, we affirm.
This appeal pertains only to the issue of venue. Thus, we summarize
the relevant facts, as gleaned from the record and the trial court’s Opinion,
as follows. Appellant1 retained Stengle, while she worked first as an
____________________________________________
1
Appellant is a California resident living in Yuba City, California.
J-A28034-17
attorney at Kenney & McCaffery (“the Firm”),2 and later at her own firm,
Stengle Law,3 to represent him in a whistleblower lawsuit against Fifth Third
Bankcorp. Stengle filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
According to Appellant, while Stengle worked at the Firm, Appellant
“brokered a relationship” between Stengle and Madsen,4 which resulted in
Stengle representing Madsen in a separate whistleblower suit against Bank
of America, also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. Appellant also alleged that Stengle informed him that, as a
broker for the relationship between Stengle and Madsen, Appellant was part
of the “client team.” Appellant, thus, believed that he was entitled to part of
Madsen’s $56 million share of the Bank of America settlement with
whistleblowers.
When Stengle refused to meet Appellant’s demand, Appellant filed a
Writ of Summons against Appellees and the Firm in the Philadelphia County
Court of Common Pleas. Prior to filing a Complaint, however, Appellant
settled his claims against the Firm and removed the Firm from the case
caption.
____________________________________________
2
Kenney & McCaffery is a firm located in Blue Bell, Montgomery County.
The firm also maintains an office in Philadelphia.
3
Stengle Law is located in Boyertown, Berks County.
4
Appellee Madsen is a California resident living in Grass Valley, California.
-2-
J-A28034-17
On February 8, 2016, Appellant filed a nine-count Complaint against
Appellees, which the trial court characterized as raising legal malpractice
claims. See Trial Ct. Op., 3/21/17, at 1. Essentially, in his Complaint,
Appellant alleged that he is entitled to a portion of Madsen’s $56 million
dollar recovery obtained in an underlying qui tam whistleblower lawsuit
brought by Madsen against Bank of America.5 Appellant alleged that Stengle
and Stengle Law represented him, and that they conspired with Madsen to
cut Appellant out of his portion of the $56 million recovery. Appellant
further alleged that Madsen’s attorneys received an estimated $19 million
dollars in legal fees as a result of this misconduct.
On March 30, 2016, Appellees filed separate Preliminary Objections on
the basis of venue.6 Appellant filed Answers on April 19, 2016. Following a
hearing, on October 12, 2016, the trial court sustained the Preliminary
____________________________________________
5
At the time Appellee Madsen filed the qui tam suit, Appellee Stengle
worked in the Firm’s office in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania. Appellee Stengle
subsequently formed her own practice in Boyertown, Berks County, Stengle
Law, where she continued to work for the Firm on this qui tam matter
pursuant to an agreement between her and the Firm.
6
Appellees also separately raised a Preliminary Objection in the nature of a
demurrer pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(4), alleging that Appellant had
failed to state a claim upon which he could be granted relief. The demurrer
portion of the Preliminary Objections is unresolved.
-3-
J-A28034-17
Objections and ordered the case transferred to the Montgomery County
Court of Common Pleas. This timely appeal followed.7
Appellant raises the following issue on appeal:
Did the trial court erroneously conclude that venue was improper
in Philadelphia County, when [Appellant’s] claims arose out of a
contract for legal services that explicitly identifies Philadelphia as
the venue for adjudicating any disputes, which [Appellant]
entered into with [the Firm] that maintained an office in
Philadelphia, represented clients in Philadelphia, performed legal
work on matters filed in Philadelphia, held out the [Firm’s]
[s]enior [p]artner who executed the contract as a “Philadelphia-
based” attorney, and where [Appellees’] interests arose solely
out of the contract.
Appellant’s Brief at 2-3.
Our scope and standard of review of a trial court’s grant of preliminary
objections as to venue is as follows: “It is well established that a trial court’s
decision to transfer venue will not be disturbed absent an abuse of
discretion.” Fritz v. Glen Mills Schools, 840 A.2d 1021, 1023 (Pa. Super.
2003) (citation omitted). “[A] plaintiff must be allowed the right to choose
any appropriate forum: ‘The applicant bears the burden of proving that a
change of venue is necessary, while a plaintiff generally is given the choice
of forum so long as the requirements of personal and subject matter
jurisdiction are satisfied.’” O’Donnell v. McDonough, 895 A.2d 45, 47 (Pa.
____________________________________________
7
The court did not order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement.
Appellant did not, however include an averment so indicating as required by
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(11) and Pa.R.A.P. 2111(d).
-4-
J-A28034-17
Super. 2006) (quoting Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hospital, 579 A.2d 1282,
1284 (Pa. 1990)). “Because the plaintiff's choice of forum is given great
weight, the moving party has the burden of proving that the original forum
is improper.” Singley v. Flier, 851 A.2d 200, 201 (Pa. Super. 2004).
“However, a plaintiff’s choice of venue is not absolute or unassailable.”
Fritz, 840 A.2d at 1023 (citation omitted). Indeed, the trial court has
substantial discretion in determining whether or not to grant a change of
venue. See Singley, 851 A.2d at 201. Accordingly, “[i]f there exists any
proper basis for the trial court's decision to grant the petition to transfer
venue, the decision must stand.” Id.
Although Appellant only raises one question on appeal, the argument
section of his Brief contains two sub-issues. In the first sub-issue, Appellant
claims that venue is proper in Philadelphia County because Appellant and the
Firm had an agreement to litigate disputes in Philadelphia County, which the
Firm allegedly had assigned to Stengle. Appellant’s Brief at 9-10. In his
second sub-issue, Appellant claims that, in sustaining Appellees’ Preliminary
Objections, the trial court erroneously applied our rules of civil procedure
pertaining to venue to Stengle and Stengle Law.8 Id. at 12. See Pa.R.C.P.
Nos. 1006(a)(1) and 2179(a)(2).
____________________________________________
8
Although Appellant filed an Answer in Opposition to Madsen’s Preliminary
Objections, he does not present any separate argument that trial court erred
in concluding that Philadelphia County is not the proper venue for his claims
against Madsen.
-5-
J-A28034-17
The crux of Appellant’s first sub-issue is that Philadelphia County is the
proper venue for this matter because “this legal malpractice action arises out
of a contract for legal services [(the “Retainer Agreement”)]” that explicitly
identifies Philadelphia as the venue for adjudicating disputes between
Appellant and the Firm. Appellant’s Brief at 9.
In support of this claim, Appellant cites the terms of Paragraph U of
the December 30, 2010 Retainer Agreement between Appellant and the
Firm, which states:
U. If a claim arises as a result of an alleged dispute, and the
dispute involves Counsel, Clients agree that any such claim or
dispute between Clients and Counsel will be submitted to
binding arbitration conducted by the Philadelphia County
Bar Association, and Clients agree to be bound by any and all
decisions rendered.
Retainer Agreement, 12/30/10, at ¶ U (emphasis added).
Additionally, implicitly acknowledging the significance of the fact that
the Firm is not a party to this matter, Appellant further claims—for the first
time on appeal—that the Firm effectively assigned its interests in the
Retainer Agreement with him to Stengle. Appellant’s Brief at 6-7, 10-11.
Therefore, Appellant implies that the Philadelphia County venue clause
continued to remain in effect, and bound Stengle to litigation in Philadelphia,
even after Appellant had settled his claims with the Firm. Appellant is not
entitled to relief.
Appellant’s claim that the Retainer Agreement is applicable on its face
as determinative of the proper venue fails. Simply, because the Firm is not
-6-
J-A28034-17
a party to this action, the venue provision in the Retainer Agreement does
not apply to the instant case. We also observe, that even if the venue
provision did apply, its application may likely preclude the Philadelphia
County Court of Common Pleas from hearing this case: Paragraph U requires
the submission of disputes to an arbitration panel of the county bar
association. See Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(6) (establishing the existence of an
agreement for alternative dispute resolution as grounds for Preliminary
Objections).
With respect to Appellant’s novel argument that the Firm effectively
assigned its interest in the Retainer Agreement to Stengle, our review
indicates this theory is unsupported by the evidence of record. Moreover,
and most importantly, Appellant has raised this issue for the first time on
appeal. The issue is, thus, waived. See Pa.R.A.P 302(a); Krentz v.
CONRAIL, 910 A.2d 20, 37 (Pa. 2006) (holding that arguments not raised
before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal).
In his second sub-issue, Appellant claims that the trial court erred in
failing to consider Pa.R.C.P. No. 1006(a)(1) and Pa.R.C.P. No. 2179(a)(4),
instead analyzing the propriety of venue in Philadelphia County under
Pa.R.C.P. 2179(a)(2) as to all Appellees. Appellant’s Brief at 12. Appellant
baldly asserts that because the Retainer Agreement between him and the
Firm included a venue provision, it is “determinative for purposes of venue
analysis under [Pa.R.C.P. No. 1006(a)(1) and Pa.R.C.P. No. 2179(a)(4).”
-7-
J-A28034-17
Id. Appellant has not developed this argument, nor has he cited any case
law in support of this claim.
It is long-settled that failure to argue and to cite any authority
supporting the argument constitutes a waiver of the issue on appeal. See
Jones v. Jones, 878 A.2d 86, 90 (Pa. Super. 2005). This Court will not act
as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant. See
Bombar v. West American Insurance Company, 932 A.2d 78, 95 (Pa.
Super. 2007). When deficiencies in a brief hinder our ability to conduct
meaningful appellate review, we can dismiss the appeal entirely or find
certain issues to be waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Because Appellant has
failed to develop this issue, he waived it. See id.; see also Bombar,
supra at 95; Jones, supra at 90.
Even if Appellant had not waived this issue, it would not merit relief.
The trial court properly analyzed the venue issue and concluded that the
parties lacked sufficient contact with Philadelphia County to establish
jurisdiction there. See Trial Ct. Op., at 3-7.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
President Judge Gantman concurs in result.
Judge Panella files a dissenting statement.
-8-
J-A28034-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/19/2018
-9-