IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Portia Young, :

Appellant :

:

v. :

: No. 1082 C.D. 2021 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania : Submitted: October 2 8

, 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 LIABILITY2 1. Plaintiff, Portia Young, is an individual, residing at the above

captioned 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,

maintaine d, 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 Penn sylvania

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 ma y be permanent

in nature.3

The Complaint m akes 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 thi s matter. See

Return of Service dated December 18, 2019.

On January 22, 2020, t he 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 Penn sylvania’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, t he Commonwealth filed a motion for judgment

on the pleadings arguing that the Commonwealth

– the s ole named defendant in the

Complaint

– enjoyed sovereign immunity. See Defendant Commonwealth of

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

Pleadings ) at 3

- 4 (pagination supplied). Appellant filed no response to the M otion

for J udgment 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 th e Department of Human Services

in 2014.4

Commonwealth filed a m otion for r econsideration 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 Or der (Motion for Reconsideration) ; see also Trial Court Order

dated July 20, 2020.

On August 6, 2020, Appellant filed her reply to the N ew M atter 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 Mot ion

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 order s denying the M otion for J udgment on the P leadings and

reconsideration th ereof

. 4 See Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Summary Judgment Opposition)

. On June 7, 2021, t he 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 co n clusions 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 t he trial cou rt 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 f or

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 o f 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 ju dge on summary judgment from overruling

5 The trial court dated and signed the Trial Court Order on June 10, 2021, bu t 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, t he coordinate jurisdi ction

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 Orde r

.

__________________________________ CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, JudgeIN 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 , 20 2 3 , the June 11, 2021 order of the

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is AFFIRMED

.

__________________________________ CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge