Court Opinion

ID: 9384017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 16:08:38.929517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:49.796289
License: Public Domain

J-A05030-23

                            2023 PA SUPER 52

 ANTHONY CRESPO AND EDWARD              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 TORRALVO                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
              v.                        :
                                        :
 WILLIAM B. HUGHES, HUGHES AND          :
 HENSELL ASSOCIATES, INC.,              :
 TEMPLE UNIVERSITY ANDTEMPLE            :
 UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, INC.              :
                                        :
 APPEAL OF: ARCH INSURANCE              :
 COMPANY                                :   No. 1313 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered April 14, 2022,
           in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
                   Civil Division at No(s): 1207003490.

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

OPINION BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                         FILED MARCH 31, 2023

     Arch Insurance Company appeals from the order of the Court of

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dismissing as moot its motion to compel

Dr. William B. Hughes, M.D. to comply with a charging order. Because the

trial court erroneously dismissed Arch’s motion to compel as moot, we vacate

and remand for further proceedings.

     In 2016, a jury found Dr. Hughes liable to Edward Torralvo for medical

malpractice and awarded Mr. Torralvo $538,000. Dr. Hughes appealed, and

this Court affirmed. See Crespo v. Hughes, 167 A.3d 168 (Pa. Super. 2017).

Mr. Torralvo assigned the judgment to Arch Insurance Company.

     On November 8, 2019, Arch moved to enforce the judgment against Dr.

Hughes by attaching the assets of Hughes Holdings, LLC to satisfy the 2016
J-A05030-23

judgment.   Dr. Hughes is the sole member of Hughes Holdings, LLC.          He

opposed the motion to enforce on the grounds that the assignment to Arch

was invalid. On September 29, 2020, the trial court entered an order granting

Arch’s motion; the order charged 100% of the unsatisfied Torralvo Judgment

debt to Hughes Holdings, LLC. Specially, the Charging Order (1) charged Dr.

Hughes’ ownership interest with the obligation to pay the judgment, (2)

ordered an accounting of the financial operations of the LLC, (3) granted Arch

the right to inspect the books and records of the LLC, (4) ordered Dr. Hughes

to pay the LLC’s incoming rents to Arch, and (5) ordered the judicial sale of

the LLC through the Sheriff of Philadelphia County.

      Dr. Hughes appealed. This Court unanimously affirmed. See Crespo

v. Hughes, 2184 EDA 2020, 2021 WL 5858464             (Pa. Super. 2021) (non-

precedential decision). Nevertheless, Dr. Hughes still refused to follow the

Charging Order, and Arch filed a motion to compel his performance.

      The trial court assigned The Honorable Edward C. Wright to hear Arch’s

motion to compel. On March 22, 2022, he recused without explanation.

      The court reassigned the motion to The Honorable Linda A. Carpenter.

Three weeks later, Judge Carpenter, sua sponte, issued an order denying the

motion, because “the Court who issued the Order of September 29, 2020 has

recused itself and has refrained from entering sanctions, this Motion is MOOT.”

Trial Court Order, 4/14/22, at 1. This timely appeal followed.

                                      I.

                                     -2-
J-A05030-23

      After receiving Arch’s notice of appeal and docketing statement, this

Court issued a show-cause order. We questioned whether the appealed-from

order was a collateral order, as Arch had asserted in its docketing statement.

See Superior Court Order, 7/19/22, at 1. Arch filed a timely reply, and this

Court discharged the show-cause order and deferred the question of appellate

jurisdiction to us.

      “The establishment of jurisdiction is of equal importance as the

establishment of a meritorious claim for relief.” Robinson v. Pennsylvania

Bd. of Probation & Parole, 582 A.2d 857, 860 (Pa. 1990). This Court “may

always consider that question on our own motion.” Kapcsos v. Benshoff,

194 A.3d 139, 141 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc).

      A jurisdictional issue presents us with “a question of law; the appellate

standard of review is de novo, and the scope of review is plenary.” Id.

      This Court’s appellate jurisdiction extends to “(1) a final order or an

order certified by the trial court as a final order; (2) an interlocutory order as

of right; (3) an interlocutory order by permission; (4) or a collateral order.”

Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Hodes, 784 A.2d 144, 144 (Pa.

Super. 2001).

      Dr. Hughes spends a great deal of time in his brief arguing that the

appealed-from order is not the second, third, and fourth type of appealable

orders.   See Hughes’ Brief at 17-28.     However, he defines, but thereafter

ignores, the first and most common type of appealable order – i.e., the final

order. See id. at 17.

                                      -3-
J-A05030-23

      The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure define a “final order” as

an order that “disposes of all claims and of all parties.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1).

      When Arch filed its motion to compel Dr. Hughes to comply with the

September 29, 2020 Charging Order, all other claims were no longer pending,

and all other parties were no longer participating in this matter. The only

claim before the trial court was Arch’s motion to compel. When the trial court

issued its order dismissing Arch’s motion as moot, the order therefore

disposed of “all claims and of all parties.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1).

      Accordingly, we hold that the appealed-from order is a final order. “[A]n

appeal may be taken as of right from any final order of a . . . trial court.”

Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). Thus, we have appellate jurisdiction.

                                      II.

      Turning to the merits of the appeal, Arch raises eight issues as follows:

      1.    Whether the trial court erred in denying Arch’s motion to
            compel as moot.

      2.    Whether the trial court erred in denying Arch’s motion to
            compel based upon the previous trial judge’s recusal from
            the case.

      3.    Whether the trial court erred in failing to enforce the
            judgment against [Dr.] Hughes, which was affirmed on
            appeal.

      4.    Whether the trial court erred in failing to enforce the
            Charging Order, which was affirmed on appeal.

      5.    Whether the trial court erred in ruling that the previous
            judge’s recusal rendered Arch’s pending motion moot,
            where [Judge Wright] refrained from ruling on the motion .
            ..

                                     -4-
J-A05030-23

      6.    Whether the trial court erred in denying Arch’s motion to
            compel on the basis that a judicial recusal renders all
            pending motions before that judge moot, as opposed to
            finding that a judicial recusal means that another judicial
            officer of the same court shall be assigned to consider and
            decide the merits of the pending motion.

      7.    Whether the trial court erred in denying Arch’s motion to
            compel, because a manifest injustice will result in that [Dr.]
            Hughes continues to violate the terms of the Charging
            Order, which was affirmed on appeal and remains in effect.

      8.    Whether the trial court erred in denying Arch’s motion to
            compel, because Arch will be left with no way to enforce its
            judgment against [Dr.] Hughes or the Charging Order,
            which was affirmed on appeal and remains in effect.

Arch’s Brief at 5-7. We address all of Arch’s issues simultaneously, because

they are all interrelated and meritorious.

      Arch contends the trial court erroneously dismissed its motion to compel

as moot. According to the trial court it determined that the motion was moot,

because Judge Wright, “who issued the Order of September 29, 2020 has

recused [him]self and has refrained from entering sanctions . . . .” Trial Court

Order, 4/14/22, at 1.

      “Mootness, like standing, is a question of law . . .” Estate of Crowder,

262 A.3d 549 (Pa. Super. 2021). “Therefore, our scope of review is plenary;

our standard is de novo.” Commonwealth v. Mauk, 185 A.3d 406, 409 (Pa.

Super. 2018).

      “As a general rule, an actual case or controversy must exist at all stages

of the judicial process, or a case will be dismissed as moot.” In re M.B., 101

A.3d 124, 127 (Pa. Super. 2014), quoting In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa.

                                     -5-
J-A05030-23

Super. 2002).    “An issue before a court is moot when a determination is

sought on a matter which, when rendered, cannot have any practical effect

on the existing controversy.” Printed Image of York, Inc. v. Mifflin Press,

Ltd., 133 A.3d 55, 59 (Pa. Super. 2016).

      It is undeniably clear that Arch and Dr. Hughes are actively fighting over

who will own Hughes Holdings, LLC and control the profits from that business.

Thus, an actual controversy exists. Moreover, if the trial court enters an order

compelling Dr. Hughes to comply with the Charging Order on pain of civil

contempt, such an order will have a real effect on resolving the controversy.

      Recusal by a trial judge does nothing to change these basic, underlying

facts. Indeed, if recusal by one member of the judiciary could render a party’s

claim moot, a miscarriage of justice would result, because the recusal would

deprive the aggrieved party of its constitutionally guaranteed judicial remedy.

      The ancient maxim holds: “for every wrong, a remedy.” Guardians

Assoc. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of City of New York, 463 U.S. 582, 626,

(1983) (Marshall, J. dissenting). “An injury is a wrong; and for the redress

of every wrong there is a remedy: a wrong is a violation of one’s right; and

for the vindication of every right there is a remedy.” Speck v. Finegold, 439

A.2d 110, 116 (Pa. 1981). Once a cause of action accrues, it becomes “a

vested right, which under Article 1, § 11 [of the Constitution of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania], may not be eliminated by subsequent

legislation.” Ieropoli v. AC&S Corp., 842 A.2d 919, 930 (Pa. 2004).

                                     -6-
J-A05030-23

       According to our constitution, “every man for an injury done him in his

lands, goods, person, or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law,

and right and justice administered without sale, denial, or delay.” Pa. Const.

art. I, § 11.    So precious is one’s constitutional right to pursue a judicial

remedy that the right of access to the courts trumps the recusal doctrine when

necessary.

       For example, in Stilp v. Commonwealth, 905 A.2d 918, 929 (Pa.

2006), the legislature passed a bill raising the pay of the judiciary and other

state officials. When public opinion pressured the General Assembly to repeal

the pay raises, it passed another bill doing just that.   A group of trial judges

sued the Commonwealth, the leaders of the General Assembly, and various

members of the Executive Branch. The trial judges sought to have the bill

repealing of their pay raise declared unconstitutional under Article V, § 16(a)

of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.1

       Because the repealing bill also reduced the salaries of the Justices of

Pennsylvania, the Justices had identical interests in the outcome of a lawsuit

as the plaintiff judges. Normally, they would have had to recuse themselves.

However, had they done so, there would have been no other judicial officers

____________________________________________

1 “Justices, judges and justices of the peace [now magisterial district judges]
shall be compensated by the Commonwealth as provided by law. Their
compensation shall not be diminished during their terms of office, unless by
law applying generally to all salaried officers of the Commonwealth.” Pa.
Const. art. V, § 16(a).

                                           -7-
J-A05030-23

left in Pennsylvania to sit as temporary Justices, because every judge of the

inferior courts faced the same conflict of interest as the Justices.

      Even where every Justice and judge in the Commonwealth would have

normally had to recuse themselves, the Supreme Court did not dismiss the

case as moot. Instead, “the long-recognized common law ‘rule of necessity’

require[d the Supreme] Court to proceed to discharge its constitutional duty,

notwithstanding any interest in the outcome.” Stilp v. Commonwealth, 905

A.2d 918, 929 (Pa. 2006).

      “The true rule unquestionably is that wherever it becomes necessary for

a judge to sit, even where [the judge] has an interest — where no provision

is made for calling another in, or where no one else can take [the judge’s]

place — it is [the judge’s] duty to hear and decide, however disagreeable it

may be.” Id. (quoting United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 214, (1980);

Philadelphia v. Fox, 64 Pa. 169, 185 (1870)).

      Thus, even if every judge in Pennsylvania were conflicted and would

normally have to recuse from Arch’s case, the motion to compel would still

not be rendered moot. One judge would have to undertake the constitutional

duty to hear and to decide the motion to compel. Clearly, then, the nearly

100 unconflicted judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia are duty

bound to hear and to decide this case. One of them must rule upon the merits

of Arch’s motion to compel Dr. Hughes’ performance of the Charging Order,

in the first instance.

                                      -8-
J-A05030-23

      Hence, Judge Wright’s recusal did not render this case moot. Arch’s

constitutional right to proceed and to collect on its judgment is too important

to countenance such a result. This matter remains ripe to decide the motion

to compel Dr. Hughes’ compliance with the Charging Order.        We therefore

remand this case for the trial court to rule upon the merits of the motion to

compel.

      Order vacated. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with

this Opinion.

      Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/31/2023

                                     -9-