J-A22041-18

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COPY COPY, INC.

 Appellant

v.

KEYSTONE DIGITAL IMAGING, INC., 

KDI AND KEYSTONE DIGITAL 

IMAGING 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 3851 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order November 6, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at 

No(s): 2004-14205

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 19, 2018

Appellant, Copy Copy, Inc., appeals from the order entered in the Court 

of Common Pleas of Delaware County denying its Petition to Attach the Income 

from clients of Appellees KDI, Keystone Digital Imaging, Inc., and Keystone 

Digital Imaging and its Motion to Compel Appellees to Disclose the Location of 

Funds Received While Doing Business Under the Appellees’ Names. We affirm.

In 2005, Appellant/Plaintiff, Copy Copy, Inc., filed a breach of contract 

action against Appellees/Defendants Keystone Digital Imaging Inc., Keystone 

Digital Imaging, and KDI. During pleadings and at trial, Appellees/Defendants

unsuccessfully alleged they, as corporations, did not exist at the time of the 

contracts in question. Instead, they claimed, the separate and distinct 

corporation of “Keystone Digital Imaging, Incorporated” had been the 

contracting party. At the end of trial, on or about December 27, 2006,
J-A22041-18

- 2 -

Appellant/Plaintiff obtained a verdict against the named Appellees/Defendants 

for $288,090.22. As of December 31, 2007, the amount totaled $390,247.43.

In 2011, Appellant filed with the court a petition for forced entry in 

Appellees’ property to conduct execution of the 2006 judgment. The 

Honorable George A. Pagano denied Appellant’s petition, finding the place of 

business actually belonged to “Keystone Digital Imaging, Incorporated,” which 

was not a party to the underlying litigation and judgment.

In 2014, Appellant filed a petition to attach the assets of “Keystone 

Digital Imaging, Incorporated” in satisfaction of the 2006 judgment against 

Appellees. Specifically, Appellant alleged the three judgment debtors had 

improperly transferred all their assets to Keystone Digital Imaging, 

Incorporated.

The trial court, with the Honorable Spiros Angelos presiding, denied the 

petition. Specifically, Judge Angelos found Appellant’s 2014 action in fraud

time-barred, as Appellant was aware of Keystone Digital Imaging, 

Incorporated’s existence and the Appellees’ bankruptcies no later than 

December 2006, and a four-year statute of limitations applies to a claim for 

fraudulent conveyance under the Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer 

Act, 12 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5104, 5105. See 12 Pa.C.S.A. § 5109.

Even if Judge Angelos were to review the claim on its merits, he opined, 

he would still find it was without merit. Under the Pennsylvania Uniform 

Fraudulent Transfer Act, it is a creditor’s burden to prove, by a preponderance 

of the evidence, that a debtor transferred assets. Here, Appellant offered no 
J-A22041-18

- 3 -

testimony or evidence that any transfer took place. Without evidentiary 

support for Appellant’s claim, it was impossible to determine if 

Appellees/Defendants transferred their assets to Keystone Digital Imaging, 

Incorporated, let alone whether they did so fraudulently, Judge Angelos 

concluded.

Appellant appealed to the Superior Court. On December 5, 2016, 

however, counsel voluntarily withdrew and discontinued Appellant’s appeal. 

In April 2017, Appellant instituted the present action in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Delaware County by filing a Petition to Attach the Income of 

Clients of KDI a/k/a KDI Incorporated. In September 2017, Appellants filed

an accompanying Motion to Compel Disclosure of Location of Funds Received 

while Doing Business Under Defendants’ Names. Defendants/Appellees filed 

preliminary objections.

The Honorable Charles Burr agreed with preliminary objections that 

Appellant was attempting to relitigate the matter previously disposed of by 

Judge Angelos and voluntarily withdrawn by counsel at the appellate level. 

Specifically, Judge Burr found that all requests for relief made in the present 

action had already been denied previously by Judges Pagano and Angelos, 

respectively. Moreover, he opined, Appellant could have pursued appellate 

review in this Court from such decisions, but it elected not to do so. Judge 

Burr, therefore, relied on the aforementioned statute of limitations as well as 

on the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel to deny Appellant’s 

Petition to Attach. This timely appeal followed.
J-A22041-18

- 4 -

Appellant presents two questions for our consideration:

1. Is it an error of law and/or an abuse of discretion when the 

court will not allow the attachment of income of a named 

defendant found on a web site?

2. Is it an error of law and/or an abuse of discretion to deny 

discovery of the income of a named defendant?

Appellant’s brief, at 4.

The entirety of Appellant’s argument comprising the two issues raised 

above states the following: 

This is a case in which a company operates under [four] names 

and uses them to hide assets, claim it never signed an agreement, 

claim it did not send checks to the plaintiff and deny admissions 

in pleadings and testimony.

The record is clear KDI, Incorporated operates under several 

different names and these names are not separated legal entities.

For over 100 years, the courts have protected people and 

businesses from corporations which try to avoid paying a debt 

simply by changing their names.

. . .

[Appellant/Plaintiff] sued the correct party under the many names 

it uses. It is an error of law and an abuse of discretion not [to] 

allow [Appellant/Plaintiff] to attach[] the income from customer[s] 

listed on the KDI website.

Also, because documents show that the three named 

[Appellees/Defendants] send contracts and invoices to customers 

it is an error of law and an abuse of discretion not to allow 

[Appellant/Plaintiff] to determine the locations of the funds 

received from the customers.

Appellant’s brief, at 8-9. Appellant purports to advance this position with a

listing of decisions standing for the general proposition that a corporation 
J-A22041-18

- 5 -

cannot avoid paying a debt simply by changing its name. Id. (citing, e.g., 

Burlington Coat v. Grace Construction, 126 A.3d. 1010 (Pa.Super. 2015) 

(building owner’s entry into contract under trade name, which was fictitious 

name, did not preclude his rights under contract; use of fictitious name does 

not create separate legal entity)).

Most problematic for Appellant, however, is that it offers no response to 

Judge Burr’s order decreeing the present action either time-barred under the 

statute of limitations or precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. With respect 

to the former grounds for dismissal, Appellant fails to address, let alone 

explain how the four-year statute of limitations deemed applicable to its

previous claims of fraudulent transfer of funds would not also apply to the 

present matter, which essentially raises the same claim that Appellees

“operate[] under [four] names and use[] them to hide assets.” Appellant’s 

brief at 8.

As for Judge Burr’s alternate grounds for his decision, we note “[u]nder 

the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits 

by a court of competent jurisdiction will bar any future action on the same 

cause of action between the parties and their privies.” Mariner Chestnut 

Partners, L.P. v. Lenfest, 152 A.3d 265, 286 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citations 

and quotation marks omitted). The “doctrine therefore forbids further 

litigation on all matters which might have been raised and decided in the 

former suit, as well as those which were actually raised therein.” Id. 
J-A22041-18

- 6 -

Here, we agree res judicata applies because Appellant’s present claims, 

even if not technically identical to its previous claims, are their functional 

equivalent and, therefore, could have been raised and decided in the former 

suit. Indeed, in the previous suit before Judge Angelos, Appellant petitioned 

the court to attach assets of Keystone Digital Imaging, Incorporated. In the 

present suit, Appellant petitioned the same court to attach assets of Appellees, 

which, Appellant claimed, is essentially the same entity as Keystone Digital 

Imaging, Incorporated. As such, Appellant effectively seeks the same remedy 

from the same court that previously discerned no merit to the claim. 

We, therefore, discern no error with Judge Burr’s conclusion that the 

present matter impermissibly required him to relitigate issues disposed of by 

the same trial court in Appellant’s prior matter. Appellant had the opportunity 

to gain judicial review of the trial court’s prior decision not through a 

subsequent filing with the same court but through the appeal it actually filed 

with this Court. Before we could conduct merits review, however, Appellant 

elected to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly, Appellant may obtain no relief 

now by raising claims that were or should have been raised in the previous 

matter. For this reason, Appellant’s appeal fails.

Order affirmed.
J-A22041-18

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/19/18