Jordan v. Lynde, 330 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024)
The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant the appellants the 30-day response period required under Pa. R.Civ.P. 1035.5(a) before granting summary judgment in favor of a defendant-podiatrist. The court vacated the order as to the podiatrist, reasoning that the appellants may have had distinct legal arguments or factual disputes separate from those against the hematology defendants. By prematurely granting the motion, the trial court denied the appellants their procedural right to fully contest the claims. The case was remanded to allow the appellants to respond within the mandated timeframe.
A motion for summary judgment was filed by the hematology defendants on October 26, 2023. The appellants did not file a response opposing their motion. On December 5, 2023, the defendant-podiatrist filed a joinder in the hematology defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Eight days later, the trial court granted both motions for summary judgment.
Vacating the order as to the defendant-podiatrist, the Superior Court reasoned that there may be facts and legal arguments against the defendant-podiatrist that do not apply to the hematology defendants’ motion. The only way to be certain that such facts and arguments do not exist is to give the appellants 30 days, as permitted by Rule 1035.5(a), to assert them.
The trial court abused its discretion by prematurely granting the defendant-podiatrist’s motion, effectively denying the appellants the full and fair opportunity to respond to the motion which the Rules of Civil Procedure clearly provide. The case was remanded for the appellants to file a response to the defendant-podiatrist’s motion within 30 days of remand.
