DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS WAREHOUSE, INC. AND STUART LACHEEN
ALLEN INVESTMENTS, LLC AND ALLEN INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC
WILLIAM ALLEN, APPELLANT DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS WAREHOUSE, INC., Appellee
ALLEN INVESTMENTS, LLC,, Appellant
from the Order Entered December 26, 2017 in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s):
August, 2010 No. 02381
from the Order Entered June 19, 2018 In the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s):
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., GANTMAN, P.J.E. and COLINS, J.
William Allen, intervener in the underlying proceeding,
appeals from the December 26, 2017 order,  granting his
motion to open the October 10, 2010 default judgment entered
against Allen Investments, LLC, and Allen Investment
Properties, LLC (collectively "Allen Investments")
and in favor of Digital Communications Warehouse, Inc.,
et al. ("Digital"). Additionally, Allen
Investments appeals from the June 19, 2018 order denying its
petition to strike and/or open the default judgment entered
against it.After careful review, we quash William
Allen's appeal at No. 300 EDA 2018; we affirm in part and
reverse in part the June 19, 2018 order underlying Allen
Investments' appeal docketed at No. 2286 EDA 2018, and
remand for further proceedings.
trial court has summarized the relevant facts and procedural
history of this matter as follows:
The underlying matter in this case stems from a breach of
contract claim for the purchase of televisions. On February
17, 2009, [Digital] entered into a contract for the purchase
of television monitors with [Allen Investments]. Under the
contract, [Digital] agreed to pay [Allen Investments]
… $3, 885, 000.00 for delivery of … 3,
100 television units, and [Allen Investments] warranted
that it had legal title to the units as well as full
authority to sell them to [Digital]. At the time of the
contract's signing, [Digital] agreed to a … $5,
000.00 deposit and had already procured a buyer for the
television units. Shortly thereafter, [Allen Investments]
induced [Digital] to enter into a shipping contract in an
effort to facilitate the product delivery, however, [Allen
Investments] never delivered the television units, nor did
[Allen Investments] ever actually have legal title or
authority to the units.
[Digital] filed suit against [Allen Investments] in
Pennsylvania on August 17, 2010, claiming damages [for]
breach of contract, misrepresentation, and fraud. [Allen
Investments] failed to respond to the complaint or enter an
appearance, and on October 14, 2010, [a] default judgment was
entered against [Allen Investments] in the amount of …
$14, 601, 000.00.
Trial Court Opinion ("TCO II"), 1/4/19, at 1-2
(unnecessary capitalization omitted).
On June 8, 2017, William Allen petitioned to intervene and
[to] strike and/or open the default judgment. Mr. Allen
alleged that his son, Marc Gregory Allen, had created [Allen
Investments, LLC and Allen Investment Properties, LLC]
1 and had fraudulently assigned to Allen
Investments, LLC ownership of multiple properties belonging
to William Allen, including a Palm Harbor, Florida
condominium complex. William Allen further alleged that Mr.
Lacheen, who then held the judgment against [Allen
Investments], was attempting to attach Mr. Allen's
properties to collect on the outstanding default judgment.
1 Digital  avers in its compliant [sic]
that [Allen Investments, LLC and Allen Investment Properties,
LLC] were both incorporated in Florida.
On July 21, 2017, the court issued a rule to show cause why
Mr. Allen's petition to intervene should not be granted.
After briefing, the court entered an order dated July 13,
2017, which granted the petition to intervene, added William
Allen to the case as a party, and granted [him] 20 days to
file "an appropriate petition or motion challenging the
underlying judgment and/or execution."
On August 1, 2017, Mr. Allen filed a petition to strike [the]
default judgment and/or open [the] default judgment and/or
stay execution pending final termination of an action pending
in Florida. The court entered an order on September 7, 2017,
allowing the parties 60 days to conduct discovery on the
issues of service and timeliness of the motion, and 30
additional days for briefing. On December 14, 2017, an order
was entered granting Mr. Allen's petition to strike the
default judgment as to damages only, and stating that an
assessment of damages hearing would be scheduled forthwith.
On December 21, 2017,  Digital  filed a motion for
reconsideration of the December 14 order, asking that it be
amended to make clear that the date of the judgment on
liability remained October 10, 2010[, ] and that the December
14 order only affected the damages award. On December 26,
2017, an order was entered granting the motion for
reconsideration, vacating the December 14 order, and
clarifying that the motion to strike was granted only as to
damages. Mr. Allen timely filed a notice of appeal of the
December 26 order on January 18, 2018.
TCO I at 2-3 (unnecessary capitalization and citations to
record omitted)., 
on January 22, 2018, Allen Investments filed its own petition
to strike and/or open the remaining default judgment. The
court entered an order on June 19, 2018, which denied Allen
Investments' petition. On July 10, 2018, Allen
Investments filed a timely notice of appeal, followed by a
timely, court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement of errors
complained of on appeal.
Allen now presents the following issues for our review:
A. Was there defective service so that the record for the
2010 default judgment contains a fatal error on its face
requiring the default judgment to be stricken?
B. Did the [c]ourt lack power to enter the default judgment
against [Allen Investments] because [Allen Investments was]
not subject to general or specific jurisdiction in
Pennsylvania and because proper service was never affected?
C. Even assuming service and jurisdiction had been proper, do
the circumstances of this case nevertheless warrant the
opening of the default judgment?
D. In his motion, did [William Allen] seek relief as to both
damages and liability?
E. Should [William Allen] have been allowed to file a
response in opposition to [Digital's] motion for
reconsideration of the trial ...