July 12, 2013
E5 SOLUTIONS GROUP Appellee
KURT GROTENHUIS AND PAUL MILLER. AppellantsE5 SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC Appellee
KURT GROTENHUIS AND PAUL MILLER. Appellants
Appeal from the Order Entered September 17, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 2010-31397
BEFORE: STEVENS, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and COLVILLE, J.[*]
Kurt Grotenhuis and Paul Miller seek to appeal the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County striking judgments entered against four members of e5 Solutions Group, LLC. For the following reasons, we quash the appeal.
Grotenhuis and Miller originally asserted that the order striking the judgments was appealable pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(1). However, as they note in their statement of jurisdiction:
As the Order was striking off judgments, the Court correctly noted that Rule 311(a)(1) was not the appropriate section to pursue the appeal. Therefore, this matter was requested to be heard as a collateral order pursuant to Rule 313.
Appellant's Brief, at 1.
Pa.R.A.P. 313 provides:
Rule 313. Collateral Orders
(a) General Rule. An appeal may be taken as of right from a collateral order of an administrative agency or lower court.
(b) Definition. A collateral order is an order separable from and collateral to the main cause of action where the right involved is too important to be denied review and the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost.
In Rae v. Pa. Funeral Directors Ass'n, 977 A.2d 1121 (Pa. 2009), our Supreme Court held that "the collateral order doctrine is to be construed narrowly, and we require every one of its three prongs to be clearly present before collateral appellate review is allowed." To satisfy the requirement that the right involved is too important to be denied, the appeal must "involve rights deeply rooted in public policy going beyond the particular litigation at hand." Genviva v. Frisk, 725 A.2d 1209, 1214 (Pa. 1999). Appellants' assertion that the trial court's order striking the judgment violates the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure does not render the matter at hand one of general public importance.
Furthermore, Appellants will not lose their right to appellate review of this issue. They will have the right to challenge the order striking the judgment following entry of a final order in this case. See Crystal Lake Camps v. Alford, 923 A.2d 482 (Pa. Super. 2007) (this Court reviewed order to strike judgment after entry of final order and reversed strike order).