J -A25004-17 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

JASON COHEN : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant 

v. 

LYNNE GOLD-BIKIN, ESQUIRE AND : No. 552 EDA 2017 

WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON 

STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY, LLP 

Appeal from the Order Entered January 13, 2017 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Civil Division at No(s): June Term, 2016 No. 2663 

BEFORE: OTT, J., STABILE, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E. 

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 07, 2018 

Jason Cohen appeals from the order entered January 13, 2017, in the 

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The order sustained the 

preliminary objections filed by Lynne Gold-Bicken, Esquire, and Weber 

Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby, LLP (hereinafter "Attorney"), and 

dismissed, with prejudice, Cohen's complaint, in this legal malpractice action. 

On appeal, Cohen argues the trial court erred in finding he failed to state a 

cognizable claim for legal malpractice. For the reasons below, we affirm. 

The instant legal malpractice action emanates from Attorney's 

representation of Cohen in a prior custody battle with his now ex-wife, Alexis 

Braid. The following pertinent facts and procedural history are gleaned from 

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 
J -A25004-17 

Cohen's amended complaint, this Court's unpublished decision in a prior 

appeal of the custody action, and the trial court docket. See First Amended 

Complaint, 11/15/2016; J.C. v. A.B., 96 A.3d 1082 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(unpublished memorandum). 

In June of 2012, Braid filed a complaint in divorce in Montgomery 

County, Pennsylvania, and sought primary legal and physical custody of the 

parties' only child, Kayla, born in November of 2006. At that time, Braid was 

pregnant with Cohen's second child. In July of 2012, Braid filed a petition for 

special relief and requested permission to "relocate temporarily" to Florida in 

order to reside with her parents for the birth of their second child. 1.C., supra, 

96 A.3d 1082 (unpublished memorandum at *1). On August 13, 2012, Cohen 

and Braid entered into a stipulation whereby the parties would share legal 

custody of Kayla, but Braid would be granted primary physical custody of the 

child, and be permitted to move, temporarily, to Florida to "reside with her 

parents during the duration of her pregnancy." First Amended Complaint, 

11/15/2016, at ¶ 7. On August 31, 2012, after the stipulation was filed in 

court, Attorney entered an appearance on behalf of Cohen. 

Thereafter, on September 12, 2012, Braid gave birth in Florida to the 

parties' second daughter, Kendall. In November of 2012, Braid issued notice 

of her intention to relocate permanently to Florida. See 1.C., supra, 96 A.3d 

1082 (unpublished memorandum at *5). Cohen objected to the relocation, 

and, in addition, filed a petition seeking genetic testing of Kendall to establish 

-2 
J -A25004-17 

his paternity. Braid and Kayla returned to Pennsylvania as agreed; however, 

Kendall remained in Florida. 

The trial court conducted a three-day custody/relocation hearing from 

February 4-6, 2013. Before the court issued its ruling, on March 1, 2013, 

Cohen filed an amended custody complaint, seeking joint legal and primary 

physical custody of both daughters, after genetic testing established his 

paternity of Kendall. On March 15, 2013, the trial court entered an order 

granting Braid primary physical custody of Kayla and permitting her to 

relocate to Florida. The order did not mention Kendall. See First Amended 

Complaint, 11/15/2015, at Exhibit C, Order, 3/15/2013. Cohen filed a motion 

for reconsideration on March 20, 2013, but only mentioned Kendall in the final 

two paragraphs: (1) stating there was a "pending action for custody of Kendall 

in Pennsylvania[;]"1 and (2) claiming Braid had refused to "bring Kendall to 

Pennsylvania" or permit him to see her in the hospital and demonstrated a 

pattern of obstructive behavior designed to prevent contact between [Cohen] 

and his children[.]" Id. at Exhibit D, Motion for Reconsideration, 3/20/2013, 

at 7. Cohen's request for relief, however, only sought primary physical 

custody of Kayla. See id. at 8. The court did not rule upon the motion for 

reconsideration before Cohen filed a notice of appeal on April 10, 2013. 

1 Presumably, this "pending action for custody of Kendall" was the amended 

custody complaint filed by Cohen on March 1, 2013. 

-3 
J -A25004-17 

In a decision filed on January 14, 2014, a panel of this Court affirmed, 

in part, and reversed, in part. See .7.C., supra. Specifically, the panel 

affirmed the award of primary physical custody to Braid, but reversed the 

order granting her petition for relocation. See id., 96 A.3d 1082 (unpublished 

memorandum at *17). On January 17, 2014, Cohen filed a petition to modify 

in the trial court seeking custody of Kendall. On remand from the decision of 

the Superior Court, the trial court entered a temporary order on March 4, 

2014, granting Cohen sole legal and primary physical custody of Kayla. On 

March 19, 2014, after securing Cohen the relief he requested, Attorney 

withdrew her appearance, and new counsel entered an appearance on behalf 

of Cohen. 

Subsequently, on March 28, 2014, the parties entered into a stipulation, 

whereby they agreed Cohen's custodial period would begin following the 2014 

school year. Once again, the stipulation did not mention Kendall. By order 

dated April 8, 2014, the trial court approved the stipulation as a final order of 

the court. Thereafter, Braid filed preliminary objections, contesting Cohen's 

motion seeking custody of Kendall. On June 8, 2015, the trial court entered 

an order sustaining Braid's preliminary objections, and dismissing Cohen's 

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Attorney's Preliminary 

Objections, 12/5/2016, at Exhibit E, Order, 6/8/2015. Cohen did not appeal 

that order. 

In the interim, Cohen instituted the present legal malpractice action by 

filing a writ of summons on June 23, 2016. Subsequently, on November 15, 

- 4 - 
J -A25004-17 

2016, he filed a first amended complaint, asserting a claim of breach of 

contract/covenant of good faith based upon Attorney's failure to pursue 

custody of Kendall. See First Amended Complaint, 11/15/2016, at 1111 29-32. 

He claims that as a result of Attorney's neglect, he "does not have full physical 

and legal custody of Kendall or, in fact, any custody rights at all as to Kendall; 

and has suffered extreme and severe emotional distress and significant 

financial loss as a result thereof." Id. at ¶ 28. On December 15, 2016, 

Attorney filed preliminary objections, asserting, inter alia, Cohen cannot 

establish a legal malpractice claim because (1) he would not have prevailed 

in the underlying dispute since the Montgomery County court had no 

jurisdiction to determine the custody of Kendall; and (2) he has not suffered 

actual harm because he can still seek custody of Kendall in her home state of 

Florida. See Preliminary Objections to First Amended Complaint, 12/5/2016, 

at 5-8, 10-11. After reviewing a reply by Cohen and another response by 

Attorney, on January 13, 2017, the trial court entered an order sustaining 

Attorney's preliminary objections, and dismissing the claims with prejudice. 

This appeal followed.2 

Cohen's sole argument on appeal asserts the trial court erred in 

concluding he failed to state a cognizable claim of legal malpractice, and 

sustaining Attorney's preliminary objections. 

2 The trial court did not direct Cohen to file a concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). 

-5 
J -A25004-17 

"[Our] standard of review is de novo and the scope of review is plenary" 

when this Court considers a trial court's order sustaining preliminary 

objections. Jones v. Bd. of Directors of Valor Credit Union, 169 A.3d 632, 

635 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quotation omitted). Furthermore, if the trial court's 

ruling "will result in the denial of claim or a dismissal of 

suit, preliminary objections will be sustained only where the case is free and 

clear of doubt." Id. (quotation omitted). 

To state a cognizable claim of legal malpractice a plaintiff must plead 

the following three elements: 

employment of the attorney or other basis for a duty; the failure 

of the attorney to exercise ordinary skill and knowledge; and that 

the attorney's negligence was the proximate cause of damage to 

the plaintiff. 

412 N. Front St. Assocs., LP v. Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C., 151 A.3d 

646, 657 (Pa. Super. 2016). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained: 

An essential element to this cause of action is proof of actual loss 

rather than a breach of a professional duty causing only nominal 

damages, speculative harm or the threat of future harm. 

Damages are considered remote or speculative only if there is 

uncertainty concerning the identification of the existence of 

damages rather than the ability to precisely calculate the amount 

or value of damages. In essence, a legal malpractice action in 

Pennsylvania requires the plaintiff to prove that he had a viable 

cause of action against the party he wished to sue in the 

underlying case and that the attorney he hired was negligent in 

prosecuting or defending that underlying case (often referred to 

as proving a "case within a case"). 

Kituskie v. Corbman, 714 A.2d 1027, 1030 (Pa. 1998) (internal citations 

omitted). 

-6 
J -A25004-17 

Here, the trial court found Cohen failed to state a claim of legal 

malpractice against Attorney for two reasons: (1) Cohen did not establish he 

would have prevailed in a custody action for Kendall in the trial court, and (2) 

Cohen failed to show he suffered actual damages. See Trial Court Opinion, 

2/22/2017, at 2. 

First, in determining Cohen failed to demonstrate he would have 

prevailed in the prior custody action, the trial court explained that because 

Kendall's "home state" is Florida, the Montgomery County trial court would 

not have had jurisdiction to make a custody determination. See id. at 3. 

Indeed, the trial court noted that Cohen did, in fact, later seek custody of 

Kendall in the Pennsylvania courts, and the trial court in that proceeding 

dismissed Cohen's complaint for custody because it lacked "Subject Matter 

Jurisdiction."3 Id. at 4. 

Second, in concluding Cohen's purported damages were merely 

speculative, the court stated "[t]he opportunity to obtain custody in Florida 

remains; [] Cohen has not suffered actual harm; and, there has been no 

adverse ruling as to Kendall." Id. at 2. Consequently, the trial court sustained 

Attorney's preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. 

Inexplicably, Cohen does not address the specific elements of a legal 

malpractice action in his brief. Rather, he asserts the Montgomery County 

3 In fact, the trial court noted that Cohen's "sole legal argument" on this issue 

in his response to Attorney's preliminary objections, "was a lengthy quote 

from a memorandum submitted by a successor attorney in the underlying 

custody matter[.]" Trial Court Opinion, 2/22/2017, at 4. 

- 7 - 
J -A25004-17 

trial court had jurisdiction over Kendall, so the court erred in dismissing his 

complaint on that basis. See Cohen's Brief at 17. Moreover, Cohen claims 

he did suffer "actual harm" because, as a result of Braid's alienation of Kendall 

in Florida, he "sustained severe emotional distress (and financial loss towards 

visitation out-of-state)." Id. at 17. 

With regard to the jurisdictional issue, Cohen asserts that although 

Florida may be Kendall's "home state" pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody 

Jurisdiction Act ("UCCJA"),4 "in certain circumstances the trial court may 

determine the home state is not the most appropriate forum." Cohen's Brief 

at 18, citing Merman v. Merman, 603 A.2d 201 (Pa. Super. 1992). Cohen 

insists Braid "implicitly" conceded Pennsylvania was the "most appropriate 

forum" for the parties' custody proceedings, and acted with "unclean hands" 

when she alienated Cohen from Kendall, and refused to bring the child to 

Pennsylvania. Id. Furthermore, he maintains a best interest of the child 

analysis also results in a determination that Pennsylvania is the most 

appropriate forum because Kendall's sister, Kayla, resides there with Cohen, 

and the parties "had initiated custody proceedings in Pennsylvania." Id. at 

19. 

We find Cohen's argument unpersuasive. Section 5421 of the UCCJA 

provides that a Pennsylvania court has jurisdiction to make an initial child 

custody determination only in the following circumstances: 

4 See 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5401 et seq. 

-8 
J -A25004-17 

(1) this Commonwealth is the home state of the child on the date 

of the commencement of the proceeding or was the home state of 

the child within six months before the commencement of the 

proceeding and the child is absent from this Commonwealth but a 

parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this 

Commonwealth; 

(2) a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under 

paragraph (1) or a court of the home state of the child has 

declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this 

Commonwealth is the more appropriate forum under section 5427 

(relating to inconvenient forum) or 5428 (relating to jurisdiction 

declined by reason of conduct) and: 

(i) the child and the child's parents, or the child and at least 

one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant 

connection with this Commonwealth other than mere 

physical presence; and 

(ii) substantial evidence is available in this Commonwealth 

concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal 

relationships; 

(3) all courts having jurisdiction under paragraph (1) or (2) have 

declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this 

Commonwealth is the more appropriate forum to determine the 

custody of the child under section 5427 or 5428; or 

(4) no court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the 

criteria specified in paragraph (1), (2) or (3). 

23 Pa.C.S. § 5421(a). It is important to note the statute was revised in 2004, 

and the Comment following the revision explains that among the changes was 

"[t]he jurisdiction of the home state has been prioritized over other 

jurisdictional bases." 23 Pa.C.S. § 5421, Uniform Law Comment. Section 

5402 defines a child's "home state" as: 

The state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting 

as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before 

the commencement of a child custody proceeding. In the case 

of a child six months of age or younger, the term means the 

-9 
J -A25004-17 

state in which the child lived from birth with any of the 

persons mentioned. A period of temporary absence of any of 

the mentioned persons is part of the period. 

23 Pa.C.S. § 5402 (emphasis supplied). 

Accordingly, under a plain reading of the statute, Pennsylvania did not 

have jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination of Kendall. Kendall 

was born in Florida on September 12, 2013, and has remained there during 

these proceedings. When Cohen filed his amended custody complaint on 

March 1, 2013, Kendall was less than six months' old. Therefore, pursuant to 

Section 5402, Florida is her "home state." Moreover, none of the remaining 

bases for jurisdiction in Pennsylvania set forth in Section 5421 are applicable 

since Florida has not declined to exercise jurisdiction.5 

Furthermore, Cohen's reliance on Merman, supra, and the significant 

contacts test, is misplaced. First, Merman was decided under the prior 

version of the UCCJA. See Merman, supra, 603 A.2d at 204 (relying upon 

now repealed 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5348). Second, in that case, the father initiated 

custody proceedings in Pennsylvania within six months' of the mother's move, 

with the children, to New Jersey. See id. at 202. Therefore, Pennsylvania 

was the home state of the children at the time of the initiation of proceedings. 

5 Cohen implies Pennsylvania had jurisdiction over Kendall because Braid was 

"still a resident of Pennsylvania" when he initiated the custody proceedings. 

See Cohen's Brief at 17. However, he provides no legal support for this 

assertion. Section 5402 clearly states that the "home state" of a child six 

months of age or younger is "the state in which the child lived from birth with" 

a parent. 23 Pa.C.S. § 5402. Had Kendall been born in Pennsylvania, our 

analysis would be different. 

- 10 - 
J -A25004-17 

See id. at 204. Third, because the children had been living in New Jersey 

since the move, the father conceded New Jersey also had jurisdiction under 

the UCCJA. See id., citing former statute 23 Pa.C.S. § 5344(a)(2). Therefore, 

in that case, the Pennsylvania court was permitted to consider which 

jurisdiction was a more appropriate forum under former statute, 23 Pa.C.S. § 

5348(e). Conversely, in the present case, the Montgomery County court 

never had jurisdiction over Kendall. Accordingly, the "significant contacts" 

test is irrelevant under the facts of this case. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 5421, Uniform 

Law Comment ("[A] significant connection state may assume jurisdiction only 

when there is no home state or when the home state decides that the 

significant connection state would be a more appropriate forum under section 

207 or 208 (section 5427 or 5428).") (emphasis supplied). Likewise, while 

we recognize the importance of a best interest of the child analysis in custody 

proceedings, the analysis is unnecessary where, as here, the Montgomery 

County court had no jurisdiction over the child. 

Because we agree with the trial court that Pennsylvania had no 

jurisdiction to determine the custody of Kendall, Cohen's request for emotional 

distress and travel expense damages necessarily fails. Indeed, had Attorney 

sought custody of Kendall in Montgomery County, her petition would have 

been denied. Cohen may still seek custody of Kendall in the Florida courts. 

Lastly, we note Cohen objects to the trial court's consideration of the 

ultimate ruling in underlying custody proceeding, which in June of 2015, 

dismissed his complaint seeking custody of Kendall due to the lack of subject 

- 11 - 
J -A25004-17 

matter jurisdiction. See Cohen's Brief at 20. He emphasizes "[p]reliminary 

objections may only rest upon the Complaint's sufficiency" and if the record is 

not sufficiently developed, "then this matter should be remanded to the Court 

of Common Pleas to develop the child custody record." Id. 

Generally, a trial court's review of preliminary objections in the nature 

of demurrer, "should be restricted to the facts alleged in the complaint, and a 

trial court should not take judicial notice of collateral facts." 220 P'ship v. 

Philadelphia Elec. Co., 650 A.2d 1094, 1097 (Pa. Super. 1994). However, 

a court may take judicial notice of a fact "which the parties have admitted or 

which is incorporated into the complaint by reference to a prior court action." 

Id. Indeed, "[t]he sufficiency of a complaint which refers to a separate and 

distinct proceeding is determined by a consideration of all relevant matters 

therein set forth." Gulentz v. Schanno Transp., Inc., 513 A.2d 440, 443 

(Pa. Super. 1986), appeal denied, 527 A.2d 541 (Pa. 1987), and 527 A.2d 543 

(Pa. 1987). 

Here, the underlying custody proceedings were referenced in, and 

relevant to, the complaint because Cohen's cause of action was based upon 

Attorney's purported negligence in representing him in those proceedings. 

Nevertheless, our conclusion that Pennsylvania did not have jurisdiction to 

determine the custody of Kendall was not based upon the June 8, 2015, ruling 

of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. Rather, it was based upon 

the facts set forth in the complaint and underlying custody proceedings, as 

well as the applicable law. 

- 12 - 
J -A25004-17 

Accordingly, because we agree Cohen has failed to state a cognizable 

claim of legal malpractice against Attorney, we affirm the order sustaining 

Attorney's preliminary objections and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Jseph D. Seletyn, 

Prothonotary 

Date:2/7/18 

- 13 -