J-A18017-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DU PHUNG AND THUR PHUNG : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellants :
:
:
v. :
:
:
THE CUTLER GROUP, INC. T/D/B/A : No. 621 EDA 2017
DAVID CUTLER GROUP :
Appeal from the Order Entered January 13, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at
No(s): 06-27292
BEFORE: STABILE, J., STEVENS*, P.J.E., and STRASSBURGER**, J.
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 29, 2018
Appellants, Du Phung and Thur Phung, appeal from the January 13,
2017, order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, the Cutler Group, Inc.,
t/d/b/a David Cutler Group, and dismissing Appellants’ complaint in its
entirety with prejudice. After a careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: On October 30,
2006, Appellants filed a complaint averring that, on September 24, 2000, they
signed an agreement of sale with Appellee for the construction of their house.
On July 26, 2001, they made settlement on the house, which was constructed
by Appellee, and the parties executed a home warranty agreement. As
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
** Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A18017-18
constructed, the front of the house is clad with brick veneer, while the side
and rear elevations are clad with stucco.
Appellants alleged that, on April 1, 2006, they discovered water
penetrating the interior of their home through the exterior stucco, resulting in
water damage and fungal contamination of the exterior and interior of the
house, as well as its contents. Appellants alleged they provided Appellee with
notice and a reasonable period to make repairs to the new house, as well as
correct the defects, to no avail. Appellants indicated they will incur costs in
excess of $100,000.00 to make the repairs. The complaint contained claims
of negligence, strict liability, breach of contract, breach of express warranty,
breach of statutory and implied warranties,
inconvenience/annoyance/discomfort, and consumer fraud.
Appellee filed preliminary objections on November 14, 2006, to which
Appellants filed a response on December 4, 2006. However, the trial court
did not rule upon the preliminary objections.1
The docket reveals that, on June 19, 2009, the trial court issued a notice
to terminate the matter, and on July 2, 2009, Appellants filed a statement of
intent to proceed. On October 26, 2011, the trial court issued another notice
to terminate, to which Appellants filed a statement of intent to proceed on
____________________________________________
1 Relevantly, the trial court explained that “[a]t the time, the local rule
required the filing of an argument praecipe by the plaintiffs’ counsel, which
was not done.” Trial Court Opinion, filed 4/11/18, at 2 n.1.
-2-
J-A18017-18
November 15, 2011. On December 12, 2013, the trial court again issued a
notice to terminate, and on December 13, 2013, Appellants filed a statement
of intent to proceed.
Following a discovery management conference in April of 2014, and the
parties’ filing of a trial praecipe on October 23, 2015, the trial court placed the
case on a standby trial list.
Thereafter, on January 28, 2016, Appellee filed a motion in limine
seeking to preclude Appellants’ experts from testifying at trial. Specifically,
Appellee averred Appellants’ expert, Jerry Yedinak of Jerry Yedinak Stucco
Inspection & Design, did not offer in his report an opinion with the required
reasonable degree of professional certainty that a defect in the application of
the stucco caused moisture to breach the water resistant nature of the building
envelope and/or caused damage to the substrate.
In this regard, Appellee noted that, in his report, Mr. Yedinak indicated
that, on August 21, 2006, he inspected the exterior of the home and
performed an analysis of the moisture content of the substrate by drilling holes
through the exterior stucco cladding. Appellee averred Mr. Yedinak reported
an elevated probe reading under the corner of a single window on the left
elevation proximate to a rear window and indicated the elevated reading could
have been caused by a number of things, including “improper, or the lack of,
flashing around windows, as well as possible leaking windows.” Appellee’s
Motion In Limine, filed 1/28/16, at 3 (emphasis omitted). Appellee noted that
-3-
J-A18017-18
Mr. Yedinak’s report speculated as to the cause for the elevated moisture
reading. Id. Appellee noted Mr. Yedinak did not inspect the interior of the
house.
Further, in the motion in limine, Appellee sought to preclude the expert
testimony of Marc Conti of Property Damage Services. Appellee argued Mr.
Conti, who failed to issue a formal report and relied upon a “price list,” failed
to “calculate the cost of the repairs that Mr. Yedinak opined were necessary
to remedy the defect[,]” and utilized “the wrong measure of damages[.]” Id.
at 4-5.
Appellants filed a response in opposition to Appellee’s motion in limine,
and on April 13, 2016, Appellants sought a continuance based on the
unavailability of Mr. Yedinak, who was housebound in relation to double hip
replacement surgery. Appellants informed the trial court that they would
“‘immediately make arrangements for [Mr. Yedinak’s] videotaped trial
deposition, so as to prevent any further delay.’” Trial Court Opinion, filed
4/11/18, at 5 (citation to record omitted). The trial court granted the request
for a continuance and scheduled argument on the motion in limine for May 4,
2016. However, “Appellants never obtained Mr. Yedinak’s videotaped trial
deposition.” Id.
On May 20, 2016, Appellants requested the matter be stricken from the
upcoming trial list. Appellants averred that Mr. Conti, their proposed damages
expert, had passed away in the week prior and they needed time to obtain a
-4-
J-A18017-18
substitute damages expert. On May 25, 2016, the trial court granted
Appellants’ request and directed the case be placed back into the civil trial
inventory for November 2016.
Following a telephone conference, as well as the grant of another
request for continuance made by Appellants, the trial court scheduled
argument on all pre-trial motions for January 10, 2017, with trial to commence
on January 17, 2017. Appellants filed a pre-trial statement on January 4,
2017, listing four trial witnesses: themselves (Mr. and Mrs. Phung), Tim
Brennan, and Mr. Yedinak. On that same day, Appellee filed two motions in
limine.
In one motion, presenting similar arguments as presented in Appellee’s
January 28, 2016, motion, Appellee sought the preclusion of Mr. Yedinak’s
expert testimony on the basis his opinions lacked the requisite degree of
professional certainty.
In the other motion, Appellee sought to preclude the expert testimony
of Appellants’ “new” damages expert, Mr. Brennan. Specifically, Appellee
argued that, in his report and estimate, Mr. Brennan utilized the wrong
measure of damages. Appellee averred Mr. Brennan’s report did not contain
an estimate to repair the exterior defects outlined by Mr. Yedinak, and Mr.
Yedinak did not inspect the interior of the home, yet Mr. Brennan concluded
there is a defect that caused “interior damage identified on the first and second
floors from water infiltration.” Appellee’s Motion In Limine, filed 1/4/17, at 2.
-5-
J-A18017-18
Appellee noted that Mr. Brennan first inspected the home fifteen years
after it was built and ten years after Mr. Yedinak conducted his testing.
Further, Appellee noted that Mr. Brennan’s opinion “merely parrots the
findings in the estimate and report” prepared by other experts. Id. at 3. Mr.
Brennan’s report, dated July 25, 2016, provided in its entirety as follows
(verbatim):
Dear Mr. Wheeler:
At your request, I inspected the Phung Residence for
damage on June 11, 2016 at 1:30 PM. Prior to visiting the
property, I was provided with the stucco report prepared by Jerry
Yedinak, of Yedinak Stucco Inspection & Design, as well as the
report and estimate prepared by the late Mark Conti. Each of the
reports detailed issues with the exterior stucco installation.
My inspection identified all of the issues that Mr. Yedinak
and Mr. Conti pointed out in their respective reports. There was
interior damage identified on the first and second floors from
water infiltration. The basement exit stairs area experienced
minor damage from water infiltration. There is also exterior
damages resulting in the stucco not being installed to proper
standards, as outlined in the Yedinak and Conti reports.
I measured the interior rooms with damage and estimated
the repairs in each. I entered the information into Xactimate, an
estimating software program used by contractors and insurance
companies to estimate construction repair costs. The program is
generally accepted in the construction and insurance industries as
an effective estimating tool to arrive at reasonable repair costs.
Attached is a copy of my estimate. There are interior and
exterior sections with itemized construction repair costs related to
each. I have determined the damages and necessary repairs
based upon my 17 years as a residential contractor, 10 years as
a construction Specialist Estimator and the reports by Jerry
Yedinak and Mark Conti. I feel the accompanying estimate
provides an accurate assessment of the costs involved in repairing
the damages to the Phung Residence caused by the improperly
installed stucco exterior.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
-6-
J-A18017-18
Appellants’ Pre-Trial Statement, Exhibit A.2
Appellants filed a response in opposition to Appellee’s motion in limine
to preclude Mr. Brennan’s testimony. As it related to Appellee’s motion in
limine to preclude Mr. Yedinak’s testimony:
Appellants’ counsel sent an email to the court and opposing
counsel stating in part as follows: “Please be advised that
Plaintiffs will not be filing a response to Defendant’s Motion in
Limine to Preclude the testimony of Jerry Yedinak inasmuch as
Plaintiffs will not be calling Mr. Yedinak to testify at trial (he is
severely ill and housebound, indefinitely).”
Trial Court Opinion, filed 4/11/18, at 8 (citation to record omitted).
On January 10, 2017, the trial court held argument on the matter.
Appellee urged the trial court to preclude Mr. Brennan’s trial testimony on
various grounds, including: Mr. Brennan first inspected Appellants’ home
fifteen years after it was built and ten years after Mr. Yedinak conducted
testing; Mr. Brennan conducted no additional testing and provided no
photographs or other evidence regarding alleged damage to the interior of the
home; Mr. Brennan’s report failed to meet the requirements of Pa.R.E. 702
since he failed to set forth the alleged specific defect in the construction; and
Mr. Brennan merely parroted “what he believes to be Conti’s and Yedinak’s
conclusions which are a misstatement of their reports.” N.T., 1/10/17, at 5.
Appellee argued that “absent testimony from Mr. Yedinak, [Appellants] can’t
____________________________________________
2Mr. Brennan attached a fourteen-page estimate for damages to this report,
as well as a copy of his curriculum vitae.
-7-
J-A18017-18
prove liability, and absent the opinion of Mr. Brennan, [Appellants] cannot
maintain any of the causes of action alleged.” Id. at 6.
In response, Appellants argued Mr. Brennan was permitted to rely upon
the expert report of Mr. Yedinak, who indicated that the “condition of the
stucco [was] inadequate,” as well as the report of the deceased Mr. Conti,
“who came to a similar conclusion that there was water intrusion to the interior
because of these inadequacies in the stucco cladding on the outside.” Id. at
7. Appellants argued that since Mr. Brennan is an expert he is permitted to
rely on other experts’ opinions, even though those experts may not
themselves be available to testify. Appellants further argued that, based upon
the information from other experts, Mr. Brennan properly “prepared an
estimate of what he thought it should cost to repair not only the exterior
damage. . .but also the interior damage[.]” Id.
Appellee responded that, even if Mr. Brennan was permitted to rely on
other experts’ opinions, Mr. Yedinak never examined the interior of the house
to determine if there was water damage. Id. at 8. Further, neither Mr.
Yedinak nor Mr. Conti set forth the specific defect in the house. Id. at 8-9.
The trial court indicated it would soon rule on the motions in limine, and
in the meantime, on January 11, 2017, Appellee filed a motion for summary
judgment, along with a supporting memorandum. Therein, Appellee argued
that, in order to maintain a cause of action against Appellee under any of the
theories of liability presented in the complaint, Appellants’ “expert must
-8-
J-A18017-18
identify the defect in the house as constructed by [Appellee].” Appellee’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, filed 1/11/17, at 5. Appellee noted that
Appellants identified Mr. Yedinak as their sole liability expert; however,
Appellants failed to take Mr. Yedinak’s videotaped deposition and later
indicated he would not be testifying at trial. Thus, Appellee averred “[a]bsent
Mr. Yedinak’s testimony on the issue of liability and causation [Appellants]
cannot maintain a right to claim against [Appellee] under any theory of
liability.” Id. at 3.
Moreover, Appellee averred that, even assuming the existence of a
defect, Appellants needed to prove a “vitally important link of causation.” Id.
at 5 (citation omitted). Appellee noted “Mr. Yedinak admitted in his report, in
the absence of further testing, other possible causes of the elevated probe
readings could not be ruled out.” Id. at 6.
As it related to Mr. Brennan, Appellee posited Mr. Brennan should be
precluded from relying upon Mr. Yedinak’s and Mr. Conti’s reports and,
additionally, since Mr. Brennan conducted no additional testing to confirm the
existence of a defect and/or eliminate other possible causes of the alleged
defect, he had no basis to render an opinion on the issue of liability. Id.
Appellee argued:
[T]there is no defect evidence, circumstantial or otherwise,
to support an opinion on the issue of liability. Without saying who
or how, Mr. Brennan simply concludes that he identified all of the
issues that Mr. Yedinak and Mr. Conti identified in their reports.
Mr. Brennan’s circular reasoning rests on no factual foundation
and is insufficient to support expert analysis.
-9-
J-A18017-18
Id. Accordingly, Appellee posited it was entitled to the entry of summary
judgment as a matter of law.
On January 13, 2017, Appellants filed an answer in opposition to
Appellee’s motion for summary judgment, along with a supporting
memorandum. Therein, Appellants argued they produced sufficient expert
testimony on the issues of liability, causation, and damages so as to present
the issue to a fact-finder. Appellants indicated that Mr. Brennan would testify
as to liability, causation, and damages, and as an expert, he is permitted to
rely on the expert reports of Mr. Yedinak and Mr. Conti. Appellants admitted
that Mr. Yedinak did not inspect the interior of the home; however, Appellants
posited “he identified multiple defects in the construction of the home as set
forth in his report.” Appellants’ Answer to Motion for Summary Judgment,
filed 1/13/17, at 5. Appellants concluded “the report of [Mr.] Brennan, which
incorporates the opinions of [Mr.] Yedinak and [Mr.] Conti, meets the requisite
burden of proof.” Id. at 6.
By order entered on January 13, 2017, the trial court granted Appellee’s
motion for summary judgment and dismissed Appellants’ complaint in its
entirety with prejudice. Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration, which
the trial court denied. This timely appeal followed on February 8, 2017. The
trial court directed Appellants to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, Appellants
timely complied, and the trial court filed a responsive Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
opinion.
- 10 -
J-A18017-18
Appellants present the following issue for our review:
Did the trial court commit errors of law and fact and abuse its
discretion in precluding Appellants’ expert conclusions and
granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment?
Appellants’ Brief at 4.
Initially, we note that summary judgment is proper:
(1) whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to
a necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could
be established by additional discovery or expert report, or
(2) if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion,
including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who
will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence
of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury
trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury.
Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2.
In reviewing the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment,
[w]e view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Only
where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is
clear that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law will summary judgment be entered. Our scope of review of
a trial court’s order granting or denying summary judgment is
plenary, and our standard of review is clear: the trial court’s order
will be reversed only where it is established that the court
committed an error of law or abused its discretion.
Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 602 Pa. 627, 981 A.2d 198, 203 (2009).
See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. PECO, 54 A.3d 921, 925 (Pa.Super.
2012) (holding we may disturb the trial court’s determination only for an error
of law or abuse of discretion).
- 11 -
J-A18017-18
In the case sub judice, Appellants do not dispute that, to establish a
prima facie case under any of the theories presented in their complaint, they
were required to set forth sufficient evidence from which a fact-finder could
conclude Appellee was responsible for a construction defect (i.e., improperly
applying the stucco exterior) and this defect was the proximate cause of actual
damage to their home. Further, Appellants do not dispute that their issues
involve a claim of defect that is not so obvious as to be within the range of
experience and comprehension of the ordinary layperson such that expert
testimony was required to establish the construction defect, causation, and
actual damages. See Kurian v. Anisman, 851 A.2d 152, 155 (Pa.Super.
2004).
However, Appellants contend Mr. Brennan’s expert report created a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether Appellee improperly installed the
stucco and whether such caused actual exterior and interior damage to the
house. Appellants further specifically contend the trial court erred in ruling
Mr. Brennan was not permitted to testify regarding liability and causation since
there was no foundation for his own independent opinions.
In this vein, the trial court concluded Mr. Brennan’s expert report
revealed that, if Mr. Brennan testified at trial, Mr. Brennan would “parrot” the
opinions of Mr. Yedinak and Mr. Conti as to the existence of a construction
defect and causation. Thus, the trial court held that Mr. Brennan was
- 12 -
J-A18017-18
precluded from testifying as to these issues and, absent further evidence on
the issues, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee.
We agree with the trial court that Mr. Brennan’s report reveals that he
was acting as a mere conduit or transmitter of Mr. Yedinak’s and Mr. Conti’s
opinions (extrajudicial sources). See Woodard v. Chatterjee, 827 A.2d 433
(Pa.Super. 2003). Thus, the trial court properly ruled Mr. Brennan was
precluded from testifying as to the existence of a defect and causation.
The law provides that:
expert testimony is incompetent if it lacks an adequate basis in
fact. While an expert’s opinion need not be based on absolute
certainty, an opinion based on mere possibilities is not competent
evidence. This means that expert testimony cannot be based
solely upon conjecture or surmise. Rather, an expert’s
assumptions must be based upon such facts as the jury would be
warranted in finding from the evidence. Accordingly, the
Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence prescribe a threshold for
admission of expert testimony dependent upon the extent to
which the expert’s opinion is based on facts and data.
Gillingham v. Consol Energy, Inc., 51 A.3d 841, 849 (Pa.Super. 2012)
(citation omitted). Thus, an adequate basis in fact must enable the expert to
opine with a reasonable degree of certainty and is incompetent if it lacks an
adequate basis. See id.
With regard to the bases of opinion testimony by experts, Pa.R.E. 703
provides:
An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that
the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If
experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds
of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need
not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted.
- 13 -
J-A18017-18
Pa.R.E. 703.
Accordingly, “[w]hen the expert witness has consulted numerous
sources, and uses that information, together with his own professional
knowledge and experience, to arrive at his opinion, that opinion is regarded
as evidence in its own right and not as [inadmissible] hearsay in disguise.”
Woodard, 827 A.2d at 444.
However, as the Comment to Pa.R.E. 703 provides:
An expert witness cannot be a mere conduit for the opinion of
another. An expert witness may not relate the opinion of a non-
testifying expert unless the witness has reasonably relied upon it
in forming the witness’s own opinion.
Pa.R.E. 703, Comment.
In interpreting the Comment to Pa.R.E. 703, this Court has held:
[A]n expert may not act as a “mere conduit or transmitter
of the content of an extrajudicial source.”
An “expert” should not be permitted simply to repeat
another’s opinion or data without bringing to bear on it his own
expertise and judgment. Obviously, in such a situation, the non-
testifying expert is not on the witness stand and truly is
unavailable for cross-examination. The applicability of the rule
permitting experts to express opinions relying on extrajudicial
data depends on the circumstances of the particular case and
demands the exercise, like the admission of all expert testimony,
of the sound discretion of the trial court. Where ... the expert
uses several sources to arrive at his or her opinion, and has noted
the reasonable and ordinary reliance on similar sources by experts
in the field, and has coupled this reliance with personal
observation, knowledge and experience, we conclude that the
expert’s testimony should be permitted.
Woodard, 827 A.2d at 444-45 (quotations omitted).
- 14 -
J-A18017-18
In ruling Mr. Brennan was precluded from offering an opinion as to the
existence of a construction defect and causation, the trial court relevantly
indicated the following:
Appellants surprised Appellee at oral argument one week
before trial, eight (8) months after stating an intention to obtain
Mr. Yedinak’s trial deposition, and ten (10) years after filing their
complaint. Although Appellants may have sent Mr. Brennan’s
damage report to Appellee in July of 2016, they did not notify
Appellee of their intention to rely on his report alone for both
liability and damages until January 10, 2017. While the court was
inclined to deny Appellee’s motion in limine to preclude Mr.
Brennan as a damages expert, in part, for the reasons stated in
Appellants’ response thereto, neither Mr. Brennan nor his report
were [sic] proffered to provide an opinion on liability until the day
of oral argument. The [trial court] determined that Mr. Brennan
had not offered his own independent analysis and opinion
regarding liability [and causation] in his July 25, 2016, report.
Rather, in his report, Mr. Brennan parroted the conclusions
reached by Mr. Yedinak without providing any analysis on liability,
much less his own. In short, Mr. Brennan relied on Mr. Yedinak’s
report to prepare a damages report. Hence, without the testimony
of Mr. Yedinak, Appellants lacked a liability expert, and
specifically, an opinion and report demonstrating proximate
cause. Without an opinion on liability, Appellants could not meet
their burden of proof and make out a prima facie case sufficient
to go to the jury.
Trial Court Opinion, filed 4/11/18, at 19-21.
We conclude the trial court properly ruled that Mr. Brennan’s report
lacked a foundational basis as it relates to the existence of a construction
defect and causation. As the trial court aptly noted, Mr. Brennan was initially
retained, and prepared his report, for the purposes of valuing damages. From
his report, it is clear that he started with the assumption there existed a
- 15 -
J-A18017-18
construction defect in the stucco, which was the proximate cause of damages,
and it was his role to affix an amount for damage.
In this regard, Mr. Brennan noted that he reviewed Mr. Yedinak’s and
Mr. Conti’s reports, and “[e]ach of the reports detailed issues with the exterior
stucco installation[,]” and “[t]here is also [] exterior damages resulting in the
stucco not being installed to proper standards, as outlined in the Yedinak and
Conti reports.” Appellants’ Pre-Trial Statement, Exhibit A. He then summarily
states “[m]y inspection identified all of the issues that Mr. Yedinak and Mr.
Conti pointed out in their respective reports.” Id. However, Mr. Brennan does
not discuss the “issues.” He did not identify any opinion made by Mr. Yedinak
or Mr. Conti as to a specific defect or proximate causation, and in fact, he did
not offer his own opinion as to these matters. Rather, relying on Mr. Yedinak’s
and Mr. Conti’s reports, Mr. Brennan identifies items that suffered water
damage and then assesses damages with regard thereto. Therefore, we
conclude the trial court properly ruled that Mr. Brennan was not permitted to
testify as to liability and causation;3 consequently, absent additional proffered
expert testimony, the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor
of Appellee.
____________________________________________
3 In its opinion, the trial court touches upon the fact Appellee argued that,
assuming, arguendo, Mr. Brennan was permitted to utilize Mr. Yedinak’s and
Mr. Conti’s reports, their reports were themselves speculative as to the
existence of a specific construction defect and causation. However, in light of
our discussion supra, we find it unnecessary to address this issue.
- 16 -
J-A18017-18
Finally, we note Appellants argue they had insufficient time to respond
to Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Specifically, they argue Appellee
moved for summary judgment on January 11, 2017, and the trial court
instructed Appellants to respond by 9:30 a.m. on January 13, 2017.
Appellants aver that, as a result of the shortened reply period, they were not
given “a full and fair opportunity to supplement the record and oppose the
motion.” Appellants’ Brief at 15.
Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.3 provides, in relevant part:
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (e), the adverse party
may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings
but must file a response within thirty days after service of the
motion[.]
***
(e)(1) Nothing in this rule is intended to prohibit a court, at
any time prior to trial, from ruling upon a motion for summary
judgment without written responses or briefs if no party is
prejudiced. A party is prejudiced if he or she is not given a full
and fair opportunity to supplement the record and to oppose the
motion.
Pa.R.C.P. 1035.3.
With regard to Rule 1035.3, this Court has recognized:
Despite the absence of an express notice provision, we have held
that a trial court must afford parties a full and fair opportunity to
argue against a motion for summary judgment. Where, however,
neither party is prejudiced, a trial court may grant summary
judgment without providing opposing parties an opportunity to
argue or file responsive briefs. . .[W]e [have] upheld an entry of
summary judgment without any opportunity to argue or file
response briefs upon finding that “there was an extensive record
before the trial court and it was aware of the legal positions of the
parties.”
- 17 -
J-A18017-18
Smitley v. Holiday Rambler Corp., 707 A.2d 520, 526 (Pa.Super. 1998)
(citations and quotations omitted).
Here, as Appellants admit, although the trial court shortened the time,
the trial court did not rule on Appellee’s motion for summary judgment without
expressly giving Appellants an opportunity to file a reply. Further, as the trial
court relevantly indicated:
[H]aving learned of Appellants’ intention to proceed with
Mr. Brennan as both their liability and damages expert for the first
time at oral argument on January 10, 2017, [c]ounsel for Appellee
asserted during her argument that Appellants could not prove
liability without Mr. Yedinak’s opinion and testimony. Counsel for
Appellants had the opportunity to respond. At the pre-trial
conference immediately following oral argument on the motions,
[c]ounsel for Appellee made an oral motion for summary
judgment based on her argument that Appellants could not
establish liability[.] Counsel for Appellants had the opportunity to
respond. Trial had been scheduled to begin in January of 2017 for
weeks, after having previously been removed from the trial ready
list twice and continued at least twice. The court directed
[c]ounsel to file a written motion, which Appellee did the next day.
Appellants responded two days later. Counsel for Appellants had
notice and the opportunity to respond at oral argument, at the
pre-trial conference, and in writing. Consequently, Appellants had
notice as well as the opportunity to respond. The [trial court] did
not decide the motion under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.3(e)(1) given that
the court directed Appellants to file a written response. Appellants
did so on Friday, January 13, 2017.
Trial Court Opinion, filed 4/11/18, at 21-22.
We find no abuse of discretion and conclude Appellants are not entitled
to relief. See Smitley, supra.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
Affirmed.
- 18 -
J-A18017-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/29/18
- 19 -