IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Edward Charles Malloy and :

Deborah Rachel Malloy, :

Appellants :

:

v. : No. 1022 C.D. 2022

:

G. Michael Green and :

Barry C. Dozor : Submitted: February 6, 2024

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

PER CURIAM FILED: April 9, 2024

Appellants Edward Charles Malloy and Deborah Rachel Malloy (collectively

Appellants) appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County’s 

(Common Pleas) June 30, 2022 order, through which, in relevant part, Common 

Pleas denied Appellants’ Petition to Disqualify Defense Counsel (Petition).1 Upon 

review, we quash this appeal.

I. Background

On February 14, 2022, Appellants filed an abuse of process action against 

Appellees G. Michael Green and Barry C. Dozor (collectively Appellees) in 

Common Pleas, followed by an Amended Complaint on March 28, 2022. Appellants 

confusingly allege that Appellees, who are both Common Pleas judges, have abused 

the legal process by responding in opposition to a motion filed by Appellants in a 

1 Via its June 30, 2022 order, Common Pleas also granted Appellees G. Michael Green and 

Barry C. Dozor’s (Appellees) Motion for a Protective Order and Stay of Discovery; stated that all 

outstanding preliminary objections had been rendered moot on account of Appellants’ filing of a 

Third Amended Complaint, and barred Appellants from filing any additional amended complaints 

in this matter without express leave of court to do so. Common Pleas Order, 6/30/22, at 1-2. 

Appellants did not appeal those portions of this order.
2

separate, but related lawsuit in Common Pleas. See, e.g., Amended Compl., ¶¶8-36, 

104-132. Through that motion, as well as the underlying lawsuit in that separate, but 

related matter, Appellants sought a court order that would compel Appellees to 

comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 703’s administrative case 

disposition reporting requirements. Id., Ex. A (Appellees’ response to Appellants’ 

“Motion to Compel Compliance with Pa. R.J.A. NO. 703” (Response)); see also Pa. 

R.J.A. 703 (judges in this Commonwealth are required to submit biannual reports to 

the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts’ (AOPC) Court Administrator, in 

which they must list all matters which have been assigned to them and have remained 

undecided for 90 or more days).

On March 30, 2022, Appellants filed their Petition in Common Pleas. Through 

their Petition, Appellants requested that Common Pleas disqualify Nicole A. 

Feigenbaum, Esquire (Feigenbaum), from representing Appellees in this matter due 

to Feigenbaum’s purported violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional 

Conduct,

2 and to report her behavior to the Supreme Court and/or the Judicial 

Conduct Board.

3 According to Appellants, Feigenbaum committed those violations 

by filing preliminary objections to Appellants’ original Complaint, in which she 

failed to admit that Appellees had violated Rule 703; provided no evidence that her 

clients had actually complied with this Rule; and challenged Appellants’ standing to 

pursue their abuse of process action. Petition, ¶¶2-24. On June 30, 2022, Common 

Pleas denied Appellants’ Petition, whereupon Appellants appealed that ruling to our 

Court.

2 Pa. R.P.C. 1.0-8.5.

3 Feigenbaum is an attorney with the AOPC, who not only represented Appellees in this

matter at the Common Pleas level, but is also Appellees’ attorney of record in this appeal. See, 

e.g., Petition ¶¶2-4; Response at 5; Appellees’ Br. at 8, 35.
3

II. Discussion

Under normal circumstances, we would now consider the substantive merits 

of Appellants’ arguments. However, we cannot do so in this instance because we 

lack jurisdiction over this matter. It is axiomatic that “[t]his court has jurisdiction to 

hear appeals from final orders, interlocutory appeals as of right and interlocutory 

appeals by permission.” Contact II, Inc. v. Pa. State Horse Racing Comm’n, 664 

A.2d 181, 183 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995); Pa. R.A.P. 311; 312; 341(a); 1311. A final order 

is defined in pertinent part by the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure as one 

that “disposes of all claims and of all parties” or one that disposes of fewer than all 

claims and parties, but which the relevant trial court or governmental body has 

expressly deemed final due to a determination “that an immediate appeal would 

facilitate resolution of the entire case.” Pa. R.A.P. 341(b)(1), (b)(3). Additionally, a 

party may appeal a non-final order by right in the event that order is collateral in 

nature. Pa. R.A.P. 313(a). “A collateral order is an order separable from and 

collateral to the main cause of action where the right involved is too important to be 

denied review and the question presented is such that if review is postponed until 

final judgment in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost.” Pa. R.A.P. 313(b). “As 

an exception to the rule of finality, the doctrine is to be interpreted narrowly, and 

‘each prong of the collateral order doctrine must be clearly present before an order 

may be considered collateral.’” Vaccone v. Syken, 899 A.2d 1103, 1106 (Pa. 2006) 

(superseded on other grounds by Pa. R.A.P. 1114(b)(7)) (quoting Melvin v. Doe, 

836 A.2d 42, 47 (Pa. 2003)).

In this instance, the challenged order is clearly not final and is not one that is 

appealable by right on an interlocutory basis. See Pa. R.A.P. 311; 341(b)(1), (b)(3). 

We also note that Appellants did not seek leave to appeal this order on an 
4

interlocutory basis by permission. See Pa. R.A.P. 1311. Thus, the only remaining 

possibility that would allow review at this juncture is if we conclude that this order 

was immediately appealable on a collateral basis. Pa. R.A.P. 313(b). We do not, for 

three reasons. First, the substance of Common Pleas’ June 30, 2022 order is clearly 

inseparable from Appellants’ cause of action; simply put, Appellants sought to have 

Feigenbaum disqualified because she chose to file preliminary objections to the 

Amended Complaint, instead of agreeing wholesale with all of the allegations 

Appellants had made therein against Appellees. Next, it is entirely unclear what right

is present here that would be too important for us to deny immediate review of the 

challenged order; indeed, this kind of garden-variety disagreement regarding 

opposing counsel’s legal tactics falls far short of being a valid basis for invoking the 

collateral order doctrine. Finally, Appellants will not suffer irreparable harm if we 

decline to consider this appeal, as this refusal will not deprive them of their ability 

to subsequently seek review of Common Pleas’ disposition of their Petition once a 

final order has been issued in this matter.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we quash this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Edward Charles Malloy and :

Deborah Rachel Malloy, :

Appellants :

:

v. : No. 1022 C.D. 2022

:

G. Michael Green and :

Barry C. Dozor :

PER CURIAM

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 9

th day of April, 2024, it is hereby ORDERED that this 

appeal is QUASHED.