J-S18012-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ROXANNE STONE AND JACQUELINE 

HILL

v.

LYSTN, LLC, FOOD FOR LIFE 

TRUCKING AND LOGISTICS 

COMPANY, INTEGRATIVE GREEN 

SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED, 

BIODYNAMIC FARMS, LLC LYSTN, 

LLC, FOOD FOR LIFE TRUCKING AND 

LOGISTICS COMPANY, INTEGRATIVE 

GREEN SOLUTIONS, 

INCORPORATED, BIODYNAMIC 

FARMS, LLC

v.

ROXANNE STONE, JACQUELINE HILL, 

AND INITIAL, LLC, CONSTANZIA 

LEVITSKY AND COCOVINNA, LLC

APPEAL OF: ROXANNE STONE AND 

JACQUELINE HILL

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1402 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered October 21, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 

21-11790 

ROXANNE STONE AND JACQUELINE 

HILL

v.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA
J-S18012-22

- 2 -

LYSTN, LLC, FOOD FOR LIFE 

TRUCKING AND LOGISTICS 

COMPANY, INTEGRATIVE GREEN 

SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED, 

BIODYNAMIC FARMS, LLC LYSTN, 

LLC, FOOD FOR LIFE TRUCKING AND 

LOGISTICS COMPANY, INTEGRATIVE 

GREEN SOLUTIONS, 

INCORPORATED, BIODYNAMIC 

FARMS, LLC

v.

ROXANNE STONE, JACQUELINE HILL, 

AND INITIAL, LLC, CONSTANZIA 

LEVITSKY AND COCOVINNA, LLC

APPEAL OF: INITIAL, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 No. 1403 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered October 21, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 

21-11790

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 09, 2022

Appellants, Roxanne Stone and Jacqueline Hill, appeal at docket number 

1402 MDA 2021 from the trial court’s October 21, 2021 order granting 

Appellees’, Lystn, LLC, Food for Life Trucking and Logistics Company, 

Integrative Green Solutions, Incorporated, and Biodynamic Farms, LLC, 

petition for special relief and preliminary injunctive relief, and denying Ms. 

Stone and Ms. Hill’s petition for a preliminary injunction. Appellant, Initial, 
J-S18012-22

- 3 -

LLC, also appeals from this same order at docket number 1403 MDA 2021.1 

Due to procedural missteps, we are constrained to remand this case to the 

trial court with instructions. 

We need not delve into the facts underlying this matter at this time. 

Instead, we focus our attention on its procedural history. On July 21, 2021, 

Ms. Stone and Ms. Hill initiated an action against Appellees, which was 

docketed in the trial court at Docket Number 21-11790 (“No. 11790”). On 

August 19, 2021, Appellees initiated a separate action against Ms. Stone, Ms. 

Hill, Initial, LLC, Constanzia Levitsky, and Cocovinna, LLC, which was docketed 

in the trial court at Docket Number 21-12980 (“No. 12980”).2 On that same 

day, Appellees filed a petition for special and injunctive relief at No. 12980. A 

few days later, on August 25, 2021, Ms. Hill and Ms. Stone filed a petition for 

a preliminary injunction at No. 11790. 

The trial court entered an order on August 30, 2021, consolidating the 

cases. This order was entered on both dockets.3 In the order, the trial court 

stated that the cases were “consolidated for purposes of any special or 

preliminary injunction, all discovery and pre-trial matters, and trial.” See Trial 

____________________________________________

1 Throughout this writing, we refer to Ms. Stone, Ms. Hill, and Initial, LLC, 

collectively as ‘Appellants.’ 

2 We note that later, on September 24, 2021, Appellees filed an amended 

complaint with a claim for injunctive relief, naming only Ms. Hill, Ms. Stone, 

and Initial, LLC, as defendants. 

3 The records for both dockets were transmitted to this Court upon appeal. 

See infra (discussing the filing of the notices of appeal). 
J-S18012-22

- 4 -

Court Order at No. 11790, 8/30/21, at 1; Trial Court Order at No. 12980, 

8/30/21, at 1. Further, the docket at No. 12980 contains an entry, dated 

August 30, 2021, stating: “MAKE ALL FURTHER ENTRIES TO #21-11790.” 

See Docket Entry No. 20 at No. 12980 (capitalization in original). Accordingly, 

no further docket entries appear on the docket for No. 12980. 

Following a hearing on the preliminary injunction requests, the trial 

court issued an order on October 21, 2021, granting Appellees’ petition for 

special relief and preliminary injunctive relief, and denying Ms. Hill and Ms. 

Stone’s petition for a preliminary injunction. This order was only docketed at 

No. 11790.

On October 21, 2021, Ms. Stone and Ms. Hill filed a notice of appeal at 

No. 11790.4, 5 In their notice of appeal, they listed both docket numbers. That 

same day, Initial, LLC, also filed a notice of appeal at No. 11790.6 Like Ms. 

Stone and Ms. Hill, Initial, LLC, listed both docket numbers in its notice. 

On November 22, 2021, this Court issued nearly identical rules to show 

cause to Ms. Hill and Ms. Stone, and Initial, LLC. Therein, we explained:

____________________________________________

4 See Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4) (stating that an appeal may be taken as of right 

from “[a]n order that grants or denies, modifies or refuses to modify, 

continues or refuses to continue, or dissolves or refuses to dissolve an 

injunction”). 

5 As mentioned supra, Ms. Stone and Ms. Hill’s appeal was docketed in this 

Court at 1402 MDA 2021. 

6 As mentioned supra, Initial, LLC’s appeal was docketed in this Court at 1403 

MDA 2021. 
J-S18012-22

- 5 -

Appellant has filed one notice of appeal that includes multiple 

docket numbers. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 

341(a) and its Note generally require the filing of separate notices 

of appeal. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has confirmed, 

prospective to its decision filed June 1, 2018, a notice of appeal 

that fails to comply with [Pa.R.A.P.] 341 and its Note shall result 

in quashal of the appeal. See Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 

A.3d 969, 977 (Pa. 2018).[7] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court 

has held, however, that filing one notice of appeal from a single 

order entered at the lead docket for “consolidated civil matters 

where all record information necessary to adjudication of the 

appeal exists, and which involves identical parties, claims and 

issues, does not run afoul of Walker, Rule 341, or its Official 

Note.” Always Busy Consulting, LLC v. Babford & Co., Inc., 

247 A.3d 1033, 1043 (Pa. 2021).

The instant notice of appeal was filed on October 21, 2021, well 

after the Walker decision, and after the Always Busy decision. 

Further, it does not appear that these cases involve identical 

parties, claims and issues. Accordingly, Appellant is directed to 

show cause, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, 

in the form of a letter addressed to the Prothonotary of this Court 

with a copy to opposing counsel, as to why the above-captioned 

appeal should not be quashed. Failure to comply with this Order 

may result in quashal of the appeal without further notice.

Rule to Show Cause at 1403 MDA 2021, 11/22/21, at 1-2 (unnumbered; 

emphasis in original); see also Rule to Show Cause at 1402 MDA 2021, 

11/22/21 (similar). 

Ms. Hill and Ms. Stone, and Initial, LLC, filed timely, virtually identical 

responses to the rules to show cause. Therein, they argued that their appeals 

were proper under the rule articulated in Always Busy, as they filed “a single 

____________________________________________

7 As we discuss further below, since we issued our rules to show cause, our 

Supreme Court has overruled statements in the Walker opinion indicating 

that the failure to file separate appeals from an order that resolves issues 

arising on more than one docket requires the appellate court to quash the 

appeal. See Commonwealth v. Young, 265 A.3d 462, 477 n.19 (Pa. 2021) 

(citations omitted). 
J-S18012-22

- 6 -

notice of appeal from a single order entered at the lead docket number for 

consolidated civil matters[,]” and “all record information ... necessary for 

adjudication of the appeal exists...[.]” See Ms. Stone and Ms. Hill’s Response 

to Rule to Show Cause, 11/23/21, at ¶ 17; see also Initial, LLC’s Response 

to Rule to Show Cause, 11/23/21, at ¶ 17. Further, they argued that Always 

Busy 

is not to be construed under a hyperliteralism that all parties in 

the consolidated civil matters must be identical; otherwise, that 

creates a requirement impossible of execution where, under the 

[o]rder granting consolidation, Appellants were not permitted to 

file at ... No. ... 12980[,] and where Pa.R.A.P. 904(d) requires the 

[n]otice of [a]ppeal to include a copy of the docket “showing the 

entry of the order appealed from,” whereas in the instant case 

the order appealed from was not docketed at No. ... 12980.

Ms. Stone and Ms. Hill’s Response to Rule to Show Cause, 11/23/21, at ¶ 18 

(emphasis in original; internal citation omitted); see also Initial’s Response 

to Rule to Show Cause, 11/23/21, at ¶ 18.

On December 9, 2021, this Court entered orders discharging the rules 

to show cause and permitting the appeals to proceed. In our orders, we 

advised Appellants that this ruling was “not binding upon this Court as a final 

determination as to the propriety of the appeal. The parties are advised that 

the issue may be revisited by the panel to be assigned to the case....” Order 

at 1402 MDA 2021, 12/9/21, at 1 (single, unnumbered page); see also Order 

at 1403 MDA 2021, 12/9/21, at 1 (single, unnumbered page). Subsequently, 

on December 10, 2021, we entered an order consolidating the appeals at 1402 

MDA 2021 and 1403 MDA 2021. 
J-S18012-22

- 7 -

Before we may address Appellants’ issues, we must evaluate the 

propriety of their appeals. Respectively, Ms. Stone and Ms. Hill, and Initial, 

LLC, have filed one notice of appeal from an order that resolves issues arising 

on more than one lower court docket. As mentioned supra, our Supreme 

Court declared in Walker that “in future cases Rule 341(a) will, in accordance 

with its Official Note, require that when a single order resolves issues arising 

on more than one lower court docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed. 

The failure to do so will result in quashal of the appeal.” Walker, 185 A.3d 

at 977 (footnote omitted).8 Since Walker, however, our High Court has 

carved out an exception to Walker’s general rule, holding that “filing a single 

notice of appeal from a single order entered at the lead docket number for 

consolidated civil matters where all record information necessary to 

____________________________________________

8 While Rule 341 pertains to final orders, our Supreme Court in Walker 

deemed unpersuasive the Commonwealth’s argument that neither Rule 

341(a) nor its Official Note applied where it had filed its appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) (permitting the filing of interlocutory appeals as of right from 

an order in a criminal case that the Commonwealth certifies will terminate the 

case or substantially handicap its prosecution). See Walker, 185 A.3d at 975 

n.3. The Court explained that the Commonwealth “has not presented any 

compelling argument as to why the rules relating to the filing of multiple 

appeals should differ under Rules 311(d) and 341(a).” Id. Furthermore, the 

Court directed “our Appellate Procedural Rules Committee to amend the 

language of the Official Note to Rule 341 in light of this Opinion, and to 

consider further, as an alternative, an amendment to Rule 341 to state 

explicitly the requirement that separate notices of appeal must be filed when 

a single order resolves issues arising on more than one lower court docket. 

The rules relating to interlocutory appeals (Pa.R.A.P. 311–313) shall 

be conformed, as necessary, to Rule 341 in this regard.” Id. at 977-78

(emphasis added). Thus, in the case sub judice, Walker’s holding would 

apply to the parties’ appeals taken pursuant to Rule 311(a)(4). 
J-S18012-22

- 8 -

adjudication of the appeal exists, and which involves identical parties, claims 

and issues, does not run afoul of Walker, Rule 341, or its Official Note.” 

Always Busy, 247 A.3d at 1043 (footnote omitted). 

Despite Appellants’ argument that their appeals are proper under the 

exception articulated in Always Busy, we disagree. The actions here do not 

involve identical parties. At No. 11790, Ms. Stone and Ms. Hill sued Appellees. 

At No. 12980, Appellees sued Ms. Stone, Ms. Hill, and Initial, LLC. See 

footnote 2, supra. Thus, without identical parties, Always Busy’s exception 

to the Walker rule does not apply. Accord Constantakis v. Bryan 

Advisory Services, ___ A.3d ___, 2022 PA Super 81, *5 (filed May 5, 2022) 

(stating that the appellants “have failed to convince us the exception to 

Walker established in Always Busy ... extends to this matter where there is 

no complete identity of parties and, thus, no consolidation of the underlying 

cases”) (citations omitted).9 

Nevertheless, we need not quash Appellants’ appeals. As touched on 

above, in Young, our Supreme Court overruled statements in Walker 

conveying that the failure to file separate appeals from an order that resolves 

issues arising on more than one docket requires the appellate court to quash 

____________________________________________

9 We also observe that, without identical parties, a complete consolidation of 

the actions could not take place. See Malanchuk v. Tsimura, 137 A.3d 

1283, 1288 (Pa. 2016) (“[C]omplete consolidation (or merger or fusion of 

actions) does not occur absent a complete identity of parties and claims; 

separate actions lacking such overlap retain their separate identities and 

require distinct judgments; these principles pertain equally to appealability 

determinations; and they continue to operate even in the face of an order 

purporting to consolidate the actions ‘for all purposes.’”) (footnote omitted).
J-S18012-22

- 9 -

the appeal. See Young, 265 A.3d at 477 n.19 (citations omitted); see also 

footnote 7, supra. In determining that quashal is not always necessary, the 

Court relied on Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 902, which provides:

An appeal permitted by law as of right from a lower court to an 

appellate court shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the 

clerk of the lower court within the time allowed by Rule 903 (time 

for appeal). Failure of an appellant to take any step other 

than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect 

the validity of the appeal, but it is subject to such action as 

the appellate court deems appropriate, which may include, 

but is not limited to, remand of the matter to the lower

court so that the omitted procedural step may be taken.

Pa.R.A.P. 902 (emphasis added). 

The Court went on to opine that,

the relationship between Rules 341(a) and 902 is clear. Rule 341 

requires that when a single order resolves issues arising on more 

than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed from 

that order at each docket; but, where a timely appeal is 

erroneously filed at only one docket, Rule 902 permits the 

appellate court, in its discretion, to allow correction of the error, 

where appropriate.

Young, 265 A.3d at 477 (footnote omitted). Thus, while the Court 

“reaffirm[ed] Walker’s pronouncement that ‘the proper practice under Rule 

341(a) is to file separate appeals from an order that resolves issues arising on 

more than one docket[,]’” it “expressly overrule[d] those statements in the 

opinion indicating ‘[t]he failure to do so requires the appellate court to quash 

the appeal.’” Id. at 477 n.19 (citations omitted; emphasis in original). 

Thus, pursuant to Young, we exercise our discretion to permit the 

procedural errors below to be corrected. To begin, we instruct the trial court 

to enter its October 21, 2021 order on the docket at No. 12980 within ten (10) 
J-S18012-22

- 10 -

days of the filing date of this memorandum.10 Ms. Stone and Ms. Hill, and 

Initial, LLC, are then directed to respectively file a notice of appeal with the 

trial court within ten (10) days of the entry of the October 21, 2021 order on 

the docket at No. 12980. The notice of appeal shall list only the trial court 

docket number 21-12980 in the caption and be filed at that docket. 

Upon receipt of the notices of appeal, the trial court shall docket each 

of them and forward them — along with the trial court’s newly-entered 

October 21, 2021 order — to this Court’s Prothonotary within fourteen (14) 

days of receipt. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(b) (“The clerk shall immediately transmit 

to the prothonotary of the appellate court named in the notice of appeal a 

copy of the notice of appeal....”). These items should be transmitted to this 

Court as a supplemental record, which we will then include in the certified 

record that is currently in our possession. Upon receipt from the trial court, 

the Prothonotary of this Court shall docket the appeals, assign them appeal 

docket numbers, and consolidate them with the appeals at 1402 MDA 2021 

and 1403 MDA 2021. 

____________________________________________

10 See Malanchuk, 137 A.3d at 1288 (“[C]omplete consolidation (or merger 

or fusion of actions) does not occur absent a complete identity of parties and 

claims; separate actions lacking such overlap retain their separate identities 

and require distinct judgments; these principles pertain equally to 

appealability determinations; and they continue to operate even in the face of 

an order purporting to consolidate the actions ‘for all purposes.’”); 

Constantakis, supra at *3 n.4 (“[W]e conclude the trial court properly 

exercised its discretion in consolidating these two matters for administrative 

convenience, but because the parties are not identical, the consolidation order 

does not supplant the requirement for the entry of separate judgments in each 

case.”). 
J-S18012-22

- 11 -

The Prothonotary of this Court is directed to forward a copy of this 

memorandum to the Honorable J. Benjamin Nevius and the trial court Clerk 

of Courts. We also note that Appellants’ noncompliance with the above-stated 

instructions may result in quashal. 

Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction retained.