Court Opinion

ID: 9631217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:32:03.15947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:50.502625
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
BENDER, J.:
¶ 1 I respectfully dissent. As the Majority describes, RHI filed its complaint on September 4, 2002, asserting breach of contract and seeking $35,000 in unpaid consulting fees from Marlton. The following day, the Prothonotary properly assigned the case to compulsory arbitration pursuant to the plain language of the following applicable law.5 First, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7361 indicates that “where the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs” is $50,000 or less, the matter “shall first be submitted to and heard by a board of three members of the bar of the court.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 7361(a) & (b)(2). Conversely, “[n]o matter shall be referred” to compulsory arbitration if the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000. Id. at § 7361(b). The phrases “shall first be submitted” and use of the term “referred,” establish that this case was first properly assigned to arbitration upon the filing of RHI’s complaint, which is the pleading that initiated this case.
¶ 2 Similarly, the Philadelphia local court rules indicate that “all cases having an amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, of $50,000 or less shall be assigned to the Compulsory Arbitration Program of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.” Phila.Civ.R. 1301 (emphasis added). This plain and mandatory language further establishes that the arbitration panel acquired jurisdiction over this case upon the filing of the initial pleading in this case, RHI’s complaint, seeking $50,000 or less in damages, and consequent mandatory assigning of the case by the Prothonotary to the Compulsory Arbitration Program.
¶ 3 It is at this point that I further disagree with the Majority’s conclusion that, when Marlton filed its counterclaim seeking more than $50,000, the Arbitration Program was “immediately divested” of its jurisdiction. See Majority Opinion at 520. No authority exists for this proposition. Indeed, with the exception of Phila.Civ.R. 1303(g), the Philadelphia local rules as well as section 7361 are silent as to what event could potentially destroy the Arbitration Program’s subject matter jurisdiction over a case that was properly assigned to it in the first place. We are not to add words to a statute or rule that the promulgating body has omitted, unless such words are necessary for its construction. In re Hancock, 719 A.2d 1053, 1055 (Pa.Super.1998). Additionally, “[a]s a matter of statutory *531interpretation, although ‘one is admonished to listen attentively to what a statute says[;][o]ne must also listen attentively to what it does not say.’” Kmonk-Sullivan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 567 Pa. 514, 788 A.2d 955, 962 (2001) (quoting Felix Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527, 536 (1947)). The Majority’s conclusion that the arbitration panel was immediately divested of jurisdiction when Marlton filed its counterclaim would require rewriting of the applicable rules of civil procedure, and violates the above-noted precepts of statutory construction.
¶ 4 Indeed, although the rules do not provide for automatic and immediate divestment of jurisdiction under these circumstances, the rules do, however, expressly provide a mechanism by which a party may affirmatively petition for transfer out of arbitration into the trial court. Phila.Civ.R. 1303(g). Rule 1303(g) clearly provides that “[a] case filed as an Arbitration case may be certified as a major case only with Court approval.” According to the plain language of the Philadelphia local rules, no mechanism is provided for immediate, automatic, divestment of arbitration jurisdiction, but there is an express provision by which a party can file an application to have an arbitration case transferred to the trial court.6
¶ 5 Had this case been in another county, the outcome may have been different. For example, in Bucks County, a case is placed on the Arbitration List only after praecipe is filed with the prothonotary. Bucks Cty. Civil R. 1303(c). Similarly, in Lancaster County, an action is submitted to an arbitration panel when “[a] party or his attorney files with the Prothonotary, after the closing of all pleadings, a prae-cipe for reference, indicating that the case is at issue [for arbitration].” Lancaster Cty. Civ. R. 1301(C)(1). Clearly, both of these local rules contemplate that the parties take some affirmative action to place a case in arbitration in the first place and that these parties could, therefore, consider the damages asserted in any counterclaims before filing a praecipe for compulsory arbitration. Moreover, in these counties, if a counterclaim is filed before the case is submitted to arbitration, the damages sought in that counterclaim may defeat arbitration jurisdiction from attaching in the first place.
¶ 6 However, the Philadelphia local court rules are much different. As explained above, arbitration jurisdiction attaches once a matter is assigned to arbi*532tration, which properly occurred when RHI filed its initial complaint with the Prothonotary. Furthermore, the Philadelphia local rules are silent with regard to getting a case out of arbitration once it has been properly assigned, with the exception of a party’s affirmative request for a transfer under Phila.Civ.R. 1303(g), which did not occur in the instant case. The proper mechanism by which the outcome in similar future cases in Philadelphia County could be changed is by amendment or revision of the Philadelphia local rules, Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, or our consolidated statutes.
¶ 7 Finally, in support of its decision that Marlton’s counterclaim was not subject to arbitration jurisdiction, the Majority states that the counterclaim was not stamped with a Rule 1303 notice to proceed in arbitration. Majority Opinion at 528. However, in my opinion, because the case, of which the counterclaim was a part,7 was already under the jurisdiction of the arbitration panel from the time it was assigned there by the Prothonotary the day after RHI filed its initial complaint, there was no reason to include the Rule 1303 stamp on the counterclaim.
¶ 8 Since I conclude that there is no authority to support the proposition that arbitration jurisdiction was immediately divested upon the filing of Marlton’s counterclaim, I further conclude that the trial court did properly have jurisdiction over the case once it was transferred to it pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1303(b)(2) and Phi-la.Civ.R. 1303, upon RHI’s failure to appear at arbitration.
¶ 9 Also, I opine that this result would conform to the public policy underlying compulsory arbitration, especially with a docket as busy as that in Philadelphia County, which is perhaps why the Philadelphia local rules provide for automatic assignment to arbitration by the Prothono-tary, rather than requiring affirmative action on the part of a party to refer the action to arbitration in the first place. Indeed, the purpose of compulsory arbitration is to relieve the overburdened trial court dockets that exist in some communities and provide for a quicker, easier, and more economical avenue for the disposition of cases. Emporium Area Joint Sch. Auth. v. Anundson Constr. & Bldg. Supply Co., 402 Pa. 81, 166 A.2d 269, 270 (1960); Pa.R.C.P. 1301-1314 (Preface, Explanatory Cmt. (1981)). See also Ice City, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 456 Pa. 210, 314 A.2d 236, 241 (1974) (“It is beyond cavil that settlement of disputes by arbitration or appraisal is the approved public policy of this Commonwealth.”); Pantoja v. Sprott, 721 A.2d 382, 384-85 (Pa.Super.1998) (indicating that “compulsory arbitration system was adopted in order to alleviate the enormous case load of our trial courts” and that the overall objective of the system is to “expeditiously dispose of pending litigation”).
¶ 10 Also, the Majority states that
RHI suggests the court’s decision constitutes a uniquely harsh and increased penalty for failure to appear at arbitration, invites abuse, and provides a means for gaining a judgment without the necessity of litigation. RHI urges this Court to resolve the dilemma before us in a practical, sensible manner to avoid the incongruous result that would permit a counterclaim to proceed through the arbitration process regardless of the amount in controversy, so long as it is filed after an arbitration date has been assigned to the original claim.
Majority Opinion at 526.
¶ 11 I disagree with these arguments. First, one could argue that the rule an*533nounced by the Majority, wherein arbitration jurisdiction would be immediately divested upon the filing of a counterclaim seeking damages greater than $50,000, could invite abuse whereby parties would file large counterclaims in order to remove a case from arbitration. Indeed, the Majority recognizes the possibility that a counterclaim may be filed as a “ruse to defeat arbitration jurisdiction.” Majority Opinion at 529. Additionally, I emphasize that the counterclaim would not be irretrievably stuck in arbitration regardless of the amount in controversy — in making the above argument, RHI ignores the fact that the Philadelphia local rules provide a means by which RHI could have filed a petition to transfer the entire matter out of arbitration once Marlton filed its counterclaim, ie., Phila.Civ.R. 1303(g).8 In this regal’d, I emphasize that “[t]he local rules, administrative regulations and filing requirements of the Philadelphia County Court System are widely publicized to the Bar through bound volumes, continuing education, court memoranda and lectures, and are available in the ... Court filing office.” Schuylkill Navy v. Langbord, 728 A.2d 964, 968 (Pa.Super.1999). Moreover, “[cjounsel is under a high duty of care to learn and familiarize himself with the local rules of all forums in which he chooses to practice law[.J” Ttmar, Inc. v. Sulka, 402 Pa.Super. 319, 586 A.2d 1372, 1373 (1991). Accordingly, I would not agree with the proposition that trial court’s application of the plain language of the state and local rules resulted in an unduly harsh outcome or violation of public policy.
¶ 12 For the foregoing reasons, I dissent with regard to the Majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over this case when it was transferred to it following RHI’s failure to appear at arbitration. Thus, having determined that the trial court did have jurisdiction, I would have proceeded to evaluate this case with regard to whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike or open the judgment it ultimately entered against RHI. See Walt Med. v. Electro-Nucleonics, 400 Pa.Super. 274, 583 A.2d 492, 493 (1990). I do not express an opinion herein with regard to whether the refusal to strike or open the judgment constituted an abuse of discretion.

. In interpreting this law, I apply our rules of construction such as, "[w]here [a statute or rule] is unambiguous, the plain language controls, and it cannot be ignored in pursuit of the statute’s alleged contrary spirit or purpose.” Koken v. Reliance Ins. Co., 893 A.2d 70, 82 (Pa.2006). In other words, "[w]hen the words of a rule are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” Pa.R.C.P. 127(b).

. Thus, I agree with the Majority’s statements that the "subject matter jurisdiction of compulsory arbitration is controlled and expressly limited by statute” and that "generally the actions or inactions of the parties cannot bestow or expand subject matter jurisdiction where it is otherwise lacking.” Majority Opinion at 529 n. 3. Indeed, these precepts are consistent with my position that the plain language of 42 Pa.C.S. § 7361 and Phi-la.Civ.R. 1303, reveals that this case was initially and properly referred to the Arbitration Program when RHI filed their complaint seeking less than $50,000, and, accordingly, the Arbitration Program properly had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. These same provisions are silent with regard to the Arbitration Program being "immediately divested” of jurisdiction once a counterclaim seeking damages in excess of $50,000 is later filed. Again, Phila.Civ.R. 1303(g) provided a means to have the case transferred out of arbitration upon a party’s request; however, that did not occur in this case and no other statute or rule exists whereby arbitration jurisdiction would be automatically and/or immediately divested. Accordingly, the trial court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over the case when it was transferred from arbitration following RHI's failure to appear at the arbitration hearing. See Bernhard v. Bernhard, 447 Pa.Super. 118, 668 A.2d 546, 548-49 (1995) ("The trial court has jurisdiction if it is competent to hear and determine controversies of the general nature of the matter involved sub judice.").

. I agree with the Majority that Marlton’s counterclaim "arose out of the same transaction as the original claim[.]” Majority Opinion at 529.

. Thus, I also disagree with the Majority’s statement that "[i]f we said that once this case was assigned to arbitration, it remained in arbitration, we would effectively enlarge the jurisdiction of the arbitration panel by allowing Marlton's counterclaim to proceed through arbitration panels.” Majority Opinion at 529 - 30. Not only do the Philadelphia rules provide a mechanism by which a party can petition for transfer out of arbitration through Phila.Civ.R. 1303(g), which was not employed by RHI, I can find no authority or evidence tending to indicate that an arbitration panel would be incompetent to decide the issues in either the claim or the counterclaim.