J

- S06003

- 22

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

JEROME WHACK AND CHRISTIAN STREET PHARMACY, INC

Appellants

v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA DEPARTMENT OF LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS AND 1935 CHRISTIAN STREET OCF, LLC : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1361 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered June 28, 2021 , i n the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County ,

Civil Division at No(s): 200701335

. BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 7, 2022 Jerome Whack and Christian Street Pharmacy, Inc. ( collectively “ the Pharmacy”), appeal from a June 28, 2021 Order finding their conduct to be
contemptuous. Pr eliminarily, t his Court issued a Rule to Show Cause
questioning our jurisdiction

. The Pharmacy conceded that the order under

review “ was an interlocutory order and that the appeal was prematurely filed.” Pharmacy’s Brief at 7. Accordingly, we quash. 1

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 Because t he Pharmacy also sued the City of Philadelphia, subject

- matter jurisdiction over this appeal rests in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 762(a)(4)(i). However, Appellee 1935 Christian Street OCF , LLC failed to object to our jurisdiction on these grounds , the City has not yet participated in t he case, and we do not reach the merits

. Thus, we see no reason to transfer the case to Commonwealth Court at this time

. See Pa.C.S.A. § 704(a).J

- S06003

- 22

- 2

-

This Court may raise the question of appellate jurisdiction sua sponte

. See , e.g. , M. London, Inc. v. Fedders Corp. , 452 A.2d 236, 237 (Pa. Super. 1982). “Jurisdiction is purely a question of law; the appellate standard of

review is de novo , and the scope of review plenary.” Commonwealth v.
Seiders , 11 A.3d 495, 496

– 97 (Pa. Super. 2010).
We do “not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a non

appealable, interlocutory ord er.” Forrester v. Hanson , 901 A.2d 548, 554 (Pa. Super. 2006). “ F or a contempt order to be properly appealable, it is

. . . necessary that the order impose sanctions on the alleged contemnor, and that no further court order be required before the sanctio ns take effect. ” Foulk v.
Foulk , 789 A.2d 254, 258 ( Pa. Sper. 2001) ( en banc )

. Here, the June 28 th Order imposed no sanctions. Thus, under Foulk , it

was an interlocutory , non - appealable order

. Even so, the Pharmacy contends its “ appeal from the interlocutory order

. . . should be considered perfected. ” Pharmacy’s Response to Rule to Show

Cause at 4. It argu e s the June 28 th O rder became appealable , because , after the filing of this appeal, the trial court entered a second order of contempt on

Ju ly 8, 2021 that imposed sanctions. To support its theory that the July 8 th Order perfects our jurisdiction over the June 28 th Order , the Pharmacy cites
Sobien v. Mullin , 783 A

. 2d 795 , 797 n. 1 (Pa. Super

. 2001)

. There , this Court noted the appellant premat urely appeal ed from an
order denying post

- trial relief . We stated, “ if a party prematurely files a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order, the appeal is perfected once a final ,J

- S06003

- 22

- 3

-

appealable order i s entered. ” Id. , 783 A.2d at 797 n.1. Because judgment was subsequently entered, we treated the notice of appeal as if the appellant
had originally appealed from the judgment under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 905(a)(5)

. That Rule dictates that “ A notice of appeal
filed afte r the announcement of a determination but before the entry of an appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day
thereof. ” Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5).
Unlike the procedur al postur e in Sobien , h ere, t he July 8 th Order was

not the minist erial act of a prothonotary entering a final judgment to
memorialize the court’s prior determination that post

- trial relief should be
denied . Instead, the July 8 th Order was a new determination by the trial court that the Pharmacy’s conduct following the June 28 th Order continued to be
contempt uous and that th e subsequent conduct required sanctions.
As such , we may not treat the Pharmacy’s notice of appeal from the

June 28 th Order as if it were “ filed after the announcement of a determination
but before th e entry of an appealable order . . .” Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5). Unlike a final judgment entered after the denial of post

- trial relief, the July 8 th Order

was a new adjudication of continuing contempt and the appropriate sanctions
for that ongoing misconduct . Hence, t he July 8 th Order was not a ministerial
record i n g of the June 28 th determination, and reliance upon Sobien is inapt

. F ollowing the trial court’s new determination of contempt and imposition
of sanctions on July 8 th , the Pharmacy could have file d a new notice of appealJ

- S06003

- 22

- 4

-

from that appealable order

. Its failure to do so does not render the premature appeal from the June 28 th Order timely

. Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 2/7/2022