Always Busy Consulting, LLC v. Babford & Co.

• Decision Date: 25 March 2021
• Docket Number: No. 13 WAP 2020, No. 12 WAP 2020,No. 11 WAP 2020,11 WAP 2020
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Parties: ALWAYS BUSY CONSULTING, LLC, Appellant v. BABFORD & COMPANY, INC., Appellee Always Busy Consulting, LLC, Appellant v. Babford & Company, Inc., Appellee Always Busy Consulting, LLC, Appellant v. Babford & Company, Inc., Appellee

247 A.3d 1033

ALWAYS BUSY CONSULTING, LLC, Appellant

v.BABFORD & COMPANY, INC., Appellee

Always Busy Consulting, LLC, Appellant

v.Babford & Company, Inc., Appellee

Always Busy Consulting, LLC, Appellant

v.Babford & Company, Inc., Appellee

No. 11 WAP 2020

No. 12 WAP 2020

No. 13 WAP 2020

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: October 22, 2020

Decided: March 25, 2021

OPINION

JUSTICE DOUGHERTY

We granted discretionary review to consider whether a notice of appeal filed at a single docket number corresponding to the lead case of multiple consolidated civil cases should be quashed for failing to satisfy the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) as interpreted in Commonwealth v. Walker , 646 Pa. 456, 185 A.3d 969 (2018). In Walker we held the official Note to Rule 341(a) "provides a bright-line mandatory instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of appeal" and "prospectively, where a single order resolves issues arising on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each case." Id. at 971, 976-77. The Superior Court relied on Walker to quash the appeal filed below at one docket number, but we hold Walker is inapplicable to the particular facts of this case and therefore reverse.

I.

Appellant, Always Busy Consulting, LLC (ABC), was involved in a contractual payment dispute with appellee, Babford & Company, Inc. (Babford). An arbitrator ruled in favor of Babford and awarded $15,937, which was later amended to include counsel fees, interest and costs, for a total award to Babford of $32,996. ABC filed a Petition to Vacate or Modify Arbitration Award (petition to vacate) in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas at docket number GD-18-005205 (docket number 5205). Babford filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and Oppose Petition to Vacate or Modify (petition to confirm) in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas at docket number GD-18-005466 (docket number 5466). The parties then filed a joint motion to consolidate the two petitions, and by order dated June 26, 2018, the court granted the motion, established docket number 5205 as the lead docket for filing purposes, and ordered the caption of the consolidated cases be modified to reflect the same.¹ Following the submission of briefs and oral argument, on December 27, 2018, the court entered an order that denied the petition to vacate and confirmed the arbitration award in favor of Babford.²

Before judgment was entered, ABC filed a notice of appeal at the lead docket number 5205 that included both docket numbers. The Superior Court issued a rule to show cause directing ABC to file a praecipe to enter judgment in the lower court to perfect the appeal. ABC did so, and on January 31, 2019, judgment was entered at docket number 5205. The Superior Court then issued a second rule directing ABC to show cause why the appeal should not be quashed pursuant to Walker as the single notice of appeal pertained to two lower court docket numbers.³

Upon receipt of the Superior Court's order, ABC attempted to file a second notice of appeal at docket number 5466, which the common pleas court prothonotary rejected because "[a]ll filings should be submitted at the consolidated number."⁴ ABC then filed a new notice of appeal at docket number 5205 from the court's January 31, 2019 order entering judgment, which included both docket numbers in the caption, and also stated the matters at docket numbers 5205 and 5466 were consolidated. ABC informed the Superior Court of this new filing via letter with a copy of the common pleas docket attached. See Correspondence to Superior Court Deputy Prothonotary dated 2/25/19; Allegheny Cty. Dep't of Court Records Docket No. GD-18-005205, entry dated 2/25/19.

In an unpublished memorandum opinion, the Superior Court acknowledged the lower court had granted the joint motion to consolidate "the two cases" and the "lead docket for filing purposes [was] docket no. GD-18-5205." Always Busy Consulting v. Babford and Co. , Nos. 94 WDA 2019, 330 WDA 2019, 387 WDA 2019, 2019 WL 4233816 memorandum at *2-3 (Pa. Super. filed September 6, 2019) (unpublished memorandum). The panel referred to ABC's "decision to file a single notice of appeal listing both docket numbers, but filed only at docket no. GD-18-5205, and not at docket no. GD-18-5466," and observed:

The Official Note to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341 provides as follows:

Where ... one or more orders resolves issues arising on more than one docket or relating to more than one judgment, separate notices of appeal must be filed. Commonwealth v. C.M.K. , 932 A.2d 111, 113 & n.3 (Pa. Super. 2007) (quashing appeal taken by single notice of appeal from order on remand for consideration under Pa.R.Crim.P. 607 of two persons’ judgments of sentence).

Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note.

Recently, in Walker , our Supreme Court construed the above language as constituting "a bright-line mandatory instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of appeal." Walker , 185 A.3d at 976-77. Therefore, the Walker Court held that "the proper practice under Rule 341(a) is to file separate appeals from an order that resolves issues arising on more than one docket. The failure to do so requires the appellate court to quash the appeal." Id. at 977. The Court tempered its holding by making it prospective only, recognizing that "[t]he amendment to the Official Note to Rule 341 was contrary to decades of case law from this Court and the intermediate appellate courts that, while disapproving of the practice of failing to file multiple appeals, seldom quashed appeals as a result." Id. Accordingly, the Walker Court directed that "in future cases Rule 341 will, in accordance with its Official Note, require that when a single order resolves issues arising on more than one lower court docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed. The failure to do so will result in quashal of the appeal. Id. (emphasis in original).

Id. at *3-4 (quotation omitted).

Based on the foregoing, the panel held as follows:

Here, the trial court's judgment resolved Appellant's petition to vacate or modify the arbitration award filed at docket no. GD-18-5205, as well as Appellee's petition to confirm arbitration award at docket no. GD-18-5466. Although the trial court consolidated the two cases generally, Appellant failed to file a notice of appeal at docket no. GD-18-5466. Because we are constrained by the strict holding of Walker , we reluctantly quash the appeal.

Id. at *4.

The Superior Court thereafter denied ABC's petition for reconsideration en banc and we subsequently allowed appeal on the following issue:

Did the Superior Court err in quashing [ABC's] appeal pursuant to Commonwealth v. Walker , 646 Pa. 456, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), on the basis that [ABC] failed to file a notice of appeal at a separate docket number in a consolidated case, when [ABC] filed separate notices of appeal at the consolidated docket number, as directed and required by the trial court?

Always Busy Consulting LLC v. Babford & Co., Inc. , 235 A.3d 271 (Pa. 2020) (Table) (per curiam ).

II.

First, ABC recognizes that Walker expressly states the Official Note to Rule 341 provides a bright-line mandatory instruction to practitioners to "file separate notices of appeal" and to "file separate appeals from an order that resolves issues arising on more than one docket[.]" Appellant's Brief at 14, citing Walker , 185 A.3d at 976-77. But ABC notes the Walker Court "did not impose a requirement that a party must file a separate notice of appeal at separate docket numbers ." Id. (emphasis supplied by appellant). ABC further observes that neither the text of Rule 341 nor its Official Note state that parties must file separate notices of appeal at separate docket numbers to perfect an appeal. ABC thus reasons that "filing separate notices of appeal at a lead docket number in a consolidated case is patently permitted." Id. at 15. ABC points out it filed two separate notices of appeal from a single order entering judgment at the lead docket number in a consolidated case, which is a decidedly different scenario than the circumstances of Walker , upon which the panel relied. ABC insists Walker "holds only that a party must file ‘separate notices of appeal when an order (or orders) resolves issues arising on more than one lower court docket.’ " Id . at 16, quoting Walker , 185 A.3d at 977. According to ABC, because Walker "does not mandate at which docket number such notices must be filed" the decision "leaves room for the common practice (as is the practice in Allegheny County) requiring parties to file all documents in consolidated cases at the lead docket number." Id. at 16-17. ABC concludes "when the Superior Court quashed [the] appeal on the basis that [ABC] failed to file separate appeals at separate docket numbers , it improperly extended Walker's reach in conflict with this Court's clear pronouncement and contrary to its role as an error-correcting court." Id. at 17 (emphasis supplied by appellant).⁵

ABC next argues the phrase "one docket" as set forth in the Official Note to Rule 341 is ambiguous, and neither Walker nor Rule 341(a) defines the term. ABC suggests the phrase "one docket" may reasonably be interpreted as "encompassing a single docket in single case, and the lead docket in a consolidated case involving identical parties and claims." Id . at 18. ABC asserts the Walker Court held our appellate rules must be construed "in consonance with the rules of statutory construction[,]" and the object of all interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the drafter. Id. , quoting Walker , 185 A.3d at 976. ABC notes that when the language of a rule is not explicit "the Court may consider other indicia of intent[,]" and a rule " ‘is ambiguous when there are at least two reasonable interpretations of the text under review.’ " Id ., quoting Warrantech Consumer Products Services, Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co. in Liquidation , 626 Pa. 218, 96 A.3d...