IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Portia Young, :

Appellant :

:

v. :

: No. 1082 C.D. 2021

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania : Submitted: October 28, 2022

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: April 4, 2023 

Portia Young (Appellant) appeals the June 11, 2021 order (Trial Court 

Order) of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) granting 

summary judgment in favor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

(Commonwealth) and dismissing Appellant’s Complaint with prejudice. Upon 

review, we affirm.

On December 3, 2019, Appellant filed a Complaint in which she 

sparsely alleged that, on December 6, 2017, she was injured as a result of a defective 

chair on premises owned/controlled by the Commonwealth. See Complaint ¶¶ 3-5.1

1

In its entirety, the Complaint alleges as follows:

COMPLAINT

PREMISES LIABILITY
2

1. Plaintiff, Portia Young, is an individual, residing at the abovecaptioned address.

2. Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is a political 

subdivision conducting business at the above-captioned address.

3. On or about December 6, 2017, [sic] owned, possessed, inspected, 

maintained, repaired, and/or controlled and/or had the right to 

control the defective, hazardous condition.

4. At that place, Plaintiff, Portia Young, sat in a chair, provided by 

[Appellee] and exclusively in Defendant Pennsylvania Department 

of Public Welfare[’s], control, custody and care.

5. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant[] knew or should have 

known that the dangerous defective condition of the premises and 

that poses a serious risk of harm.

COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE

Portia Young v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

6. Plaintiff, Portia Young, hereby incorporates by reference all 

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth at length.

a) Failing to warn Plaintiff of a dangerous condition;

b) Placing a defective chair in a public place;

c) Failure to inspect, maintain, repair, refurbish or stabilize 

the chair that injured Plaintiff;

d) Failure to remove the chair once it became apparent that 

it was dangerous;

e) Causing a dangerous condition as a direct result of 

Defendant[’]s negligence.

7. As a result of the aforesaid negligence, Plaintiff, Portia Young, 

sustained serious, severe, and debilitating injuries including but not 

limited to: trauma and other injuries which may be unknown and 

others which may develop, some or all of which may be permanent 

in nature.
3

The Complaint makes a reference to “Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Public 

Welfare” (Department of Public Welfare)2 but does not formally name the 

Department of Public Welfare as a defendant. See Complaint ¶ 4. Additionally, the 

caption lists only the Commonwealth as a defendant. See Complaint at Caption and 

¶ 2. Further, the Return of Service filed by the sheriff indicates that the 

Commonwealth was the only defendant served with process in this matter. See

Return of Service dated December 18, 2019. 

On January 22, 2020, the Commonwealth filed an answer and new 

matter that denied the allegations of the Complaint and raised the defense of 

sovereign immunity. See Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Answer and 

New Matter to Plaintiff’s Complaint (Answer and New Matter). Appellant did not 

file a reply to the New Matter.

On February 27, 2020, the Commonwealth filed a motion for judgment 

on the pleadings arguing that the Commonwealth – the sole named defendant in the 

Complaint – enjoyed sovereign immunity. See Defendant Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Motion for Judgment on the 

Pleadings) at 3-4 (pagination supplied). Appellant filed no response to the Motion 

for Judgment on the Pleadings. Nonetheless, the trial court, through the Honorable 

Edward C. Wright, denied the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by order 

entered June 9, 2020. See Trial Court Order dated June 9, 2020. The 

8. As a result of the said accident, Plaintiff, Portia Young, may have 

suffered a permanent disability and permanent impairment of her 

capacity an [sic] health.

Complaint.

2 The Department of Public Health’s name changed to the Department of Human Services 

in 2014.
4

Commonwealth filed a motion for reconsideration on July 2, 2020, which the trial 

court, again through Judge Wright, denied by order dated July 20, 2020. See

Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Motion for Reconsideration of the 

Court’s June 9, 2020 Order (Motion for Reconsideration); see also Trial Court Order 

dated July 20, 2020. 

On August 6, 2020, Appellant filed her reply to the New Matter that 

consisted of a simple blanket denial of all paragraphs contained in the New Matter. 

See Plaintiff Portia Young Reply to Defendant New Matter (Reply to New Matter).

3

 

On April 20, 2021, the Commonwealth filed a motion for summary 

judgment that reiterated the argument from the Motion for Judgment on the 

Pleadings that the Complaint was barred by sovereign immunity. See Defendant 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Summary 

Judgment Motion). Appellant filed a response to the Summary Judgment Motion 

that did not address the sovereign immunity issue, but instead argued that the 

coordinate jurisdiction rule prevented the trial court from overruling Judge Wright’s

previous orders denying the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and 

reconsideration thereof.

4

 See Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment (Summary Judgment Opposition). On June 7, 2021, the Commonwealth 

filed a reply to the Summary Judgment Opposition in which it argued that the 

3 The Reply to New Matter states, in its entirety: “9-37. Denied. The averments in these 

paragraphs are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent of 

[sic] these averments are not conclusions of law, the [sic] are specifically denied.” Reply to New 

Matter.

4 The Summary Judgment Motion had been assigned to a different trial court judge for 

disposition.
5

coordinate jurisdiction rule was inapplicable to the instant matter. See Reply in 

Support of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

On June 11, 2021,

5

the trial court, through the Honorable D. Webster 

Keough, entered the Trial Court Order, which granted the Summary Judgment 

Motion and dismissed the Complaint with prejudice. Appellant timely appealed the 

matter on July 7, 2021.6

On appeal,7 Appellant raises a single claim: that the trial court erred in 

granting summary judgment in this matter because the trial court judge assigned to 

determine the Summary Judgment Motion violated the coordinate jurisdiction rule 

by granting summary judgment where a different trial court judge had previously 

denied the Commonwealth’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for 

Reconsideration. See Appellant’s Br. at 7. This claim lacks merit.

As this Court has explained, “[u]nder the coordinate jurisdiction rule, 

judges of coordinate jurisdiction sitting in the same case should not overrule each 

other’s decisions.” City of Philadelphia v. Galdo, 181 A.3d 1289, 1291 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2018), aff’d, 217 A.3d 811 (Pa. 2019). However, the Court has expressly 

noted that “[t]he coordinate jurisdiction rule does not apply where the motions are 

of a different type and does not bar a judge on summary judgment from overruling 

5 The trial court dated and signed the Trial Court Order on June 10, 2021, but the same was 

not docketed until the following day, June 11, 2021. See Trial Court Order.

6 Appellant originally filed the appeal of this matter in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 

which transferred the matter to this Court by order filed August 17, 2021. See Superior Court 

Order, Docket No. 1414 EDA 2021, filed August 17, 2021.

7

“An order of a trial court granting summary judgment may be disturbed by an appellate 

court only if the court committed an error of law []; thus, [a reviewing court’s] standard of review 

is de novo, and [the] scope of review is plenary.” LJL Transp., Inc. v. Pilot Air Freight Corp., 962 

A.2d 639, 647 (Pa. 2009) (internal citations omitted).
6

another judge’s decision on preliminary objections or judgment on the pleadings, 

even on an identical legal issue.” Id.

In the instant matter, a trial court judge granted a summary judgment 

motion where a different trial court judge had previously denied a motion for 

judgment on the pleadings in the same case, despite each motion being based on the 

identical claim of sovereign immunity. Very simply, the coordinate jurisdiction 

rules does not apply to these motions, which are of different types, even though the 

motions concern the identical legal issue. See Galdo. Therefore, the trial court did 

not violate the coordinate jurisdiction rule by granting the Summary Judgment 

Motion. 

Accordingly, we affirm the Trial Court Order.

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Portia Young, :

Appellant :

:

v. :

: No. 1082 C.D. 2021

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 4

th day of April, 2023, the June 11, 2021 order of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge