Don't Let Vestigial Claims or Parties Wreck Your Appeal
Would-be appellants' counsel must ensure that whatever orders they intend to challenge are in fact final, in that no "claims" or "parties" remain outstanding. In particular, counsel need to take special care that no "vestigial" claims or parties linger in the weeds of the litigation.
February 16, 2023 at 11:13 AM
8 minute read
In Pennsylvania, as in most places, for an order to be appealable as of right, it must dispose of all claims against all parties. Thus, would-be appellants' counsel must ensure that whatever orders they intend to challenge are in fact final, in that no "claims" or "parties" remain outstanding. In particular, counsel need to take special care that no "vestigial" claims or parties linger in the weeds of the litigation. "The mere fact that some of the parties have been dismissed from a case, or that some of the counts of a multi-count complaint have been dismissed is insufficient reason to classify an order as final." See Bailey v. RAS Auto Body, 85 A.3d 1064, 1069 (Pa. Super. 2014). Appellate jurisdiction is nonwaivable, and vigorously policed by the appellate courts sua sponte, so even if the active litigants are no longer prosecuting such vestigial matters, their lingering presence can—and does—destroy appellate jurisdiction. See Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance v. Johnson Matthey, 188 A.3d 396, 398 (Pa. 2018); Schmitt v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 245 A.3d 678, 681 (Pa. Super. 2021) and Estate of Considine v. Wachovia Bank, 966 A.2d 1148, 1151 (Pa. Super. 2009). Forgotten does not mean gone.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTruck Collision Defendants Claim Verdict Slip Issues Spurred Jury's $29M Award
3 minute read$8M Med Mal Verdict Against Abington Hospital Fends Off Pa. Appeals Court Challenge
3 minute readPa. High Court to Weigh Parent Company's Liability for Dissolved Subsidiary's Conduct
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250