J-S13031-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

E5 SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

KURT GROTENHUIS,

 Appellant No. 2754 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment Entered August 12, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division

at No(s): 2010-31397

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED DECEMBER 15, 2017

Appellant, Kurt Grotenhuis (“Appellant”), appeals from the judgment of 

the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas (“trial court”) ruling in favor 

of Appellee, e5 Solutions Group, LLC (“the Company”), on Count III of its 

amended complaint and granting attorney fees and costs to the Company in 

the amount of $466,294.00. We vacate this judgment, reverse the award of 

attorney fees and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this 

memorandum. 

This matter has a tangled procedural history due to overlapping 

proceedings before the trial court and the arbitrator. We begin with an 

overview of the parties and their agreement.

 

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S13031-17

- 2 -

The Company is a Pennsylvania limited liability company that performs

consulting and design services for SAP Treasury Software. R.R. 42a.1 

Appellant is a former member and owner of an eight percent interest in the 

Company. Id. at 48a.

On January 15, 2010, Appellant signed an operating agreement 

(“Agreement”) defining the terms of his membership with the Company. The 

terms relevant to this appeal are as follows. First, in Article XV, section 15.2,

Appellant agreed not to disclose confidential information concerning the 

Company’s business to any third party during or after his membership in the 

Company (“the non-disclosure clause”). Id. at 93a. Second, in Article XV, 

section 15.5, Appellant agreed that during the period in which he held an 

interest in the Company, and for two years thereafter, he would not attempt 

to interfere with the Company’s business relationships (“the non-solicitation 

clause”). Id.

Third, Article XV, section 15.7, entitled “Injunctive Relief,” provides:

Recognizing the irreparable nature of the injury that could 

be caused by the Member’s violation of the covenants 

contained in this Article XV, and that monetary damages 

would be inadequate compensation to the Company, it is 

agreed that any violation of this Article XV by a Member 

constitutes a proper subject for immediate injunctive relief, 

specific performance and other equitable relief to the 

Company without the need to post a bond. The prevailing 

party shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

litigation costs. The Members consent to the jurisdiction of 

 

1 For the parties’ convenience, we cite to the reproduced record whenever 

possible.
J-S13031-17

- 3 -

the Court of Common Pleas in the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania.

Id. at 94a.

Fourth, Article XV, section 15.8, entitled “Purchase of Interest,” 

provides:

If any Member whose Interest has been purchased and 

payment therefore has not been paid in full violates the 

nondisclosure or non-piracy/noncompetition provisions of 

this Article XV, the Company or purchasing Members, as the 

case may be, shall have the right to suspend payment. If 

the violation continues for thirty (30) days beyond 

notification to the Member of such violation, the Company 

or other Members shall have the right to acquire (or reduce 

the Purchase Price to have otherwise been paid) the 

Member’s entire Interest for such Member's Capital Account 

balance. To the extent the breaching person is a former 

Member who has sold his Interest to the Company or 

Member, if such former Member has received any payments 

in excess of the above amount, the Member shall 

immediately repay such excess to the Company or the 

purchasing Members upon written demand and full title to 

the Interest shall be vested in the purchasing Company or 

Members without any further payment.

Id.

Fifth, Article XVIII, section 18.1 provides in relevant part:

Except with disputes involving injunctive or other equitable 

relief, resolution of any and all disputes arising from or in

connection with this Agreement, whether based on contract, 

tort, or otherwise, shall be exclusively governed by and 

settled in accordance with [arbitration in accordance with 

American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) rules] . . .

Id. at 96a.

Finally, Article XVIII, section 18.2(ii) provides in relevant part:
J-S13031-17

- 4 -

The prevailing party [in AAA arbitration] shall be awarded 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The arbitration award 

shall be final and binding upon the parties. Judgment on 

the arbitration award may be entered in any court having 

jurisdiction thereof. The prevailing party shall be awarded 

all costs and expenses of litigation, including reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and expenses . . .

Id. at 97a. 

In June 2010, Appellant left the Company and sold his interest to other 

members of the Company in a purchase agreement, which called for monthly 

payments to Appellant for a five-year period. On October 26, 2010, the 

Company filed a complaint against Appellant in the trial court at No. 2010-

31397 (“Case I”), claiming that Appellant violated the non-disclosure and noninterference clauses of the Agreement, before and after he left the Company, 

by misappropriating confidential information that belonged to the Company 

and interfering with the Company’s relationships with existing clients. On 

November 22, 2010, the Company filed a three-count amended complaint 

against Appellant. Id. at 39a-62a. Counts I and II requested injunctions 

against further violations of the non-interference clause and non-disclosure 

clause, respectively. Id. at 55a-59a. Count III requested a declaratory 

judgment action that Appellant’s violation of the non-disclosure and noninterference clauses entitled the Company to withhold further payments to 

Appellant under the June 2010 purchase agreement. Id. at 59a-62a.

Appellant filed preliminary objections to the amended complaint, 

asserting, inter alia, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Count III 
J-S13031-17

- 5 -

because it was an equitable claim for relief and should proceed to arbitration. 

The trial court overruled Appellant’s preliminary objections.

In 2012, Appellant commenced an action in the trial court at No. 2012-

13005 (“Case II”) alleging various claims against the Company for monetary 

damages. Id. at 670a. Subsequently, the Company filed a motion to compel 

Appellant to arbitrate Case II in accordance with Article XVIII, section 18.1 of 

the Agreement. Id.

On October 3, 2012, Appellant filed a motion for summary judgment in 

Case I, arguing that Counts I and II of the amended complaint were moot due 

to expiration of the two-year restrictive covenant in the non-interference 

clause. Id. at 208a-388a. Appellant also argued that the Company’s action 

for declaratory judgment in Count III failed for lack of sufficient evidence. Id. 

On November 2, 2012, the trial court ordered Appellant to prosecute his 

claims in Case II in AAA arbitration. Id. at 670a. In 2013, Appellant filed an 

AAA action against the Company in Case II seeking monetary damages for (1) 

breach of contract for failure to pay monies due and owing under the 

Agreement (the “Non-Payment Of Purchase Price Claim”); (2) breach of 

contract for failure to pay sums due in addition to the Agreement; and (3) and 

two claims of breach of fiduciary duty.2 Id. at 1015a-1024a.

 

2 Appellant filed other claims against the Company but withdrew them prior to 

the arbitration hearing.
J-S13031-17

- 6 -

The Company filed counterclaims in the Case II arbitration seeking 

declaratory and monetary relief for violation of the non-disclosure and noncompetition clauses of the Agreement. Id. at 674a. In particular, as it did in 

Case I, the Company sought a declaration that it was entitled to suspend all 

payments due to Appellant under the Agreement due to his breach of the nonsolicitation and non-interference clauses. Id. 

On April 7, 2014, the arbitrator ruled that he would decide the 

Company’s counterclaims if it obtained a stay of proceedings in Case I. On 

April 14, 2014, the Company filed a petition for stay in the trial court in Case 

I, asserting that its counterclaims in Case II were within the arbitrator’s 

jurisdiction. The Company stated in relevant part:

3. In an arbitration commenced by [Appellant] now pending 

before the [AAA], the Arbitrator has determined that [the 

Company] may proceed with counterclaims which are 

essentially identical (except for damages relief) to [the 

Company’s] remaining claims in this case and directed [the 

Company] to pursue this stay.

* * *

6. In this case, [Appellant has] admitted that the remaining 

claims by [the Company] are within the scope of a valid 

arbitration agreement between the parties. Therefore, this 

case must be stayed pending arbitration.

* * *

17. As Respondents, [the Company] and its individual 

members asserted counterclaims, including a counterclaim 

for breach of Sections 15.3 and 15.5 of the . . . Agreement, 

invoking the remedy provided in Section 15.8 and seeking 

money damages (the “Article XV Counterclaim”). The only 

difference between the Article XV Counterclaim in the AAA 
J-S13031-17

- 7 -

Arbitration and Count III of the Amended Complaint in this 

action is that [the Company] and its members in the AAA 

Case Article XV Counterclaim seek an award of money 

damages which they cannot get in this Court because the 

exceptions to ADR in the Operating Agreement only allow 

pursuit in court of equitable relief.

Company’s Pet. For Stay, 4/14/14, at ¶¶ 3, 6, 17.

On July 14, 2014, the Company filed a supplemental response to 

Appellant’s pending motion for summary judgment in Case I. Therein, the

Company admitted: 

Given that the request for an injunction in Count I is now 

moot, [the Company’s] remaining claim for a declaratory 

judgment [in] Count III of the amended complaint . . . is 

subsumed in [the Company’s] counterclaim for damages in 

the [a]rbitration in the form of the remedy provided for in 

section 15.8 of the [Agreement]. 

R.R. 674a. In a footnote, the Company explained that its claims for injunctive 

relief in Counts I and II of the amended complaint were moot:

Discovery after [the Company’s] initial response to the 

summary judgment motion has not revealed any further 

non-disclosure violations by [Appellant] beyond those 

identified in [the Company’s] initial memorandum[,] and 

herein, the violations do not involve any continuing use of 

confidential information[,] and [Appellant] claim[s] that 

[he] took no other confidential information . . . Thus, there 

is no present need for injunctive relief under Count II of the 

amended complaint[,] and the fact of the violation of the 

non-disclosure provision can be resolved by arbitration.

Id.
J-S13031-17

- 8 -

In an order dated July 22, 2014, the trial court dismissed Counts I and 

II in Case I as moot “by agreement of the parties.”

3

 Id. at 1003a. The trial 

court denied summary judgment to Appellant in the declaratory judgment 

action in Count III. Id. 

On August 1, 2014, the trial court granted the Company’s motion for 

stay of proceedings in Case I. Id. at 13a.

On April 24, 2015, following an evidentiary hearing, the arbitrator 

entered a partial final award in Case II against Appellant on all of his claims.

4

Id. at 1013a-1030a. The arbitrator found in favor of the Company on its 

counterclaim for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration of its right to 

 

3 The Company did not appeal the dismissal of Counts I and II.

4

In Section III of his opinion, the arbitrator rejected Appellant’s Non-Payment 

Of Purchase Price Claim on the ground that Appellant forfeited this payment 

by violating the non-interference clause. Id. at 1015a-1020a. In Section IV, 

the arbitrator denied Appellant’s claims for monies due in addition to the 

purchase agreement on the ground that the Agreement did not contemplate 

payments in addition to the purchase price. Id. at 1020a-1023a. In Section 

V, the arbitrator concluded that the Company did not breach its fiduciary duty 

to Appellant by declining to give him a subcontract to complete a project for 

one of the Company’s clients, because (1) the Company was not under any 

obligation to offer Appellant a subcontract; (2) any breach of such obligation 

would be a breach of contract, not a breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) a 

subcontract would not have been in the Company’s best interests due to the 

parties’ strained relationship. Moreover, the arbitrator determined that the 

Company did not breach its fiduciary duty in connection with preparation of a 

notice of sale of Section 751 property accompanying Appellant’s 2010 Form 

K-1, because (1) the Company’s accountants prepared this notice instead of 

the Company itself, and (2) Appellant was not bound by this notice and was 

free to take a different position with the IRS. Id. at 1023a-1024a.
J-S13031-17

- 9 -

suspend the remainder of the purchase price. Id. at 1024a. The arbitrator 

granted this counterclaim “for reasons discussed in Section III,”5the section 

that rejected Appellant’s Non-Payment Of Purchase Price Claim.

6

 The 

arbitrator determined that the Company was the prevailing party in the 

arbitration because it prevailed on all of Appellant’s claims and one of its 

counterclaims. Id. at 1027a. Accordingly, the arbitrator directed Appellant 

to pay all of the Company’s reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in the 

arbitration. Id.

On June 22, 2015, the arbitrator entered a final award in Case II 

granting the Company $344,120.86 in attorney fees and costs. Id. at 1033a1034a. On July 23, 2015, the Company filed a petition in the trial court to 

enter judgment on the arbitration award in Case II. On October 6, 2015, the 

trial court granted this petition, stating: “[The Company’s] counterclaim for a 

declaration entitling them to suspend all further payments under the . . . 

Agreement is granted.” Id. at 1166a. The trial court entered judgment in 

favor of the Company and against Appellant in the amount of $344,120.86 “in 

accordance with the final award of [the] arbitrator allowing [the Company] to 

recover attorneys’ fees and costs.” Id. at 1167a. Appellant did not appeal 

the judgment in Case II. 

 

5 See supra note 4.

6 The arbitrator denied the Company’s two other counterclaims.
J-S13031-17

- 10 -

On September 9, 2015, the Company filed a petition in Case I to enter 

judgment on the arbitration award in favor of the Company and against 

Appellant on Count III of the amended complaint. Id. at 1152a-1159a. The 

trial court granted the Company’s petition and scheduled a hearing to 

determine reasonable attorney fees and costs. The Company filed a 

verification seeking attorney fees and costs in the amount of $466,294.00 in 

attorney fees and costs. Id. at 1307a-1322a.

On June 30, 2016, following a hearing, the trial court awarded the 

Company $66,111.13 in Case I for fees and costs that the Company spent in 

the trial court litigating its claims for equitable relief in Counts I and II of its 

amended complaint. Id. at 1442a. On July 15, 2016, the Company filed a 

motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Agreement required Appellant to 

pay fees for “any claims brought, whether in arbitration . . . or in [the trial] 

court.” Id. at 1450a.

On July 26, 2016, the trial court granted the Company’s motion for 

reconsideration in Case I and awarded the Company $466,294.00 in fees and 

costs. Id. at 1601a-1602a. On August 12, 2016, the Company entered 

judgment in this amount. Id. at 1603a-1605a. Appellant filed a timely notice 

of appeal, and both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

Appellant raises three issues in this appeal:

1. Whether the [trial] court erred in failing to sustain 

Appellant’s preliminary objection to count III of [the 

Company’s] amended complaint seeking a declaratory 

judgment[in Case I,] where the agreement at issue provides 
J-S13031-17

- 11 -

that only claims seeking equitable relief may be pursued in 

the court of common pleas?

2. Whether the [trial] court erred in denying summary 

judgment on count III of [the Company’s] amended 

complaint seeking declaratory judgment[in Case I,] as the 

relief sought was not an action in equity[,] thus depriving 

the court of jurisdiction pursuant to the agreement at 

issue[,] and where the arbitrator had directed [the 

Company] to withdraw the claim in the court of common 

pleas?

3. Whether the [trial] court erred in granting reconsideration 

of its June 30, 2016[] order[in Case I,] as no new evidence 

or legal theory was advanced and the court was not bound 

by the prior rulings of a judge sitting in a coordinate 

jurisdiction as the prior ruling was in error.

Appellant’s Brief at 1. 

This appeal boils down to one question: having obtained a judgment in 

Case II for $344,120.86 in attorney fees and costs, can the Company recover 

additional attorney fees based on the judgment in its favor on Count III in 

Case I? Appellant suggests that the Company is not entitled to any more fees 

and costs in Case I because it won all of its fees and costs in Case II. See 

Appellant’s Brief at 17. We conclude that it might be possible for the Company 

to obtain additional fees in Case I, but perhaps considerably less than the trial 

court awarded. 

“Under the American Rule, applicable in Pennsylvania, a litigant cannot 

recover counsel fees from an adverse party unless there is express statutory 

authorization, a clear agreement of the parties, or some other established 

exception.” Trizechahn Gateway, LLC v. Titus, 976 A.2d 474, 482-83 (Pa. 
J-S13031-17

- 12 -

2009) (citation omitted). We review orders granting attorney fees and costs

for abuse of discretion. See Boehm v. Riversource Life Ins. Co., 117 A.3d 

308, 335 (Pa. Super. 2015).

Here, section 15.7 of the Agreement provides that the “prevailing party” 

in any action for injunctive relief in the trial court shall receive attorney fees, 

and section 18.2(ii) provides the same relief to the “prevailing party” in an 

arbitration of contract or tort claims. In short, the Agreement provided that 

the parties would litigate all injunction and equity disputes in the trial court 

and all other disputes in AAA arbitration, but no matter where the parties 

chose to litigate, the prevailing party had the right to obtain attorney fees and 

expenses from the losing party. Thus, there is a “clear agreement of the 

parties” relating to recovery of attorney fees. Trizechahn Gateway, 976 

A.2d at 482-83. 

At first, the trial court awarded $66,111.13 in fees and costs to the 

Company in Case I. The trial court later explained that this award represented 

the fees that the Company spent on Counts I and II of its three-count 

amended complaint in Case I. Trial Ct. Op., 10/27/16, at 3. Subsequently, 

the trial court granted the Company’s motion for reconsideration and awarded 

$466,294.00 in fees and costs, seven times more than its original award. The 

court explained that the jump from $66,111.13 to $466,294.00 represented 

the fees spent in prosecuting Count III, the action for declaratory judgment 

in Case I. 
J-S13031-17

- 13 -

We have several concerns with the trial court’s reasoning that 

necessitate a remand for further proceedings. To begin with, the Company is 

not the prevailing party on Counts I and II, and cannot recover fees and costs 

on these counts, because the trial court dismissed them as moot. See Profit 

Wize Marketing v. Wiest, 812 A.2d 1270, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2002) (plain 

and unambiguous meaning of “prevail” requires plaintiff to “triumph” or 

“win[;]” thus, plaintiff did not prevail where trial court never reached merits 

of case or vindicated plaintiff’s position). 

The Company did prevail in its declaratory judgment in Count III

because the trial court entered judgment in its favor on this count. Even so, 

it is important to remember that (1) the Company admitted that Count III was 

“subsumed” in its declaratory judgment claim in Case II, and (2) the Company 

has already prevailed in Case II and has been awarded attorney fees and costs 

in that case. Consequently, the Company cannot obtain fees and costs 

relating to Count III that duplicate fees and costs that it won in Case II. We 

leave it to the trial court to determine in the first instance whether any fees 

or costs related to Count III are different from fees and costs that the 

Company won in Case II.

Judgment vacated. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction 

relinquished.
J-S13031-17

- 14 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/15/17