Court Opinion

ID: 9375300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 15:07:40.513689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.558933
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Vincent N. Melchiorre                     :
                                          :
           v.                             : No. 1186 C.D. 2021
                                          : Argued: November 14, 2022
Simon Haileab, Esquire,                   :
                                          :
                            Appellant     :

BEFORE:         HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
                HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge (P)
                HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WOJCIK                                          FILED: February 27, 2023

                Simon Haileab, Esq. (Haileab), a former Assistant District Attorney
(ADA) of the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (DA’s Office), appeals from
the October 20, 2021 order of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas (trial
court)1 that denied, in part, his Motion for Summary Judgment to former
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Vincent N. Melchiorre’s
(Melchiorre) civil action against Haileab involving claims of defamation, false light,
and tortious interference. Haileab argues that the trial court erred in determining that
he was not entitled to “absolute immunity” from civil liability for statements he
allegedly made within the scope of his authority as an ADA. Also before this Court
is Melchiorre’s Motion to Quash the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and Haileab’s

       1
         The Honorable Robert Shenkin, a senior judge of the Chester County Court of Common
Pleas, was assigned to the case as an out-of-county judge.
Answer in response. For the reasons that follow, we grant Melchiorre’s Motion to
Quash and quash Haileab’s appeal.
              On March 19, 2018, Melchiorre filed a Complaint in the trial court
against ADA Haileab and the DA’s Office. At the time of the events at issue,
Melchiorre was a judge appointed to the trial court, and Haileab was an ADA in the
DA’s Office. In the Complaint, Melchiorre alleged that, on March 6, 2017, he met
with Haileab and defense counsel in chambers to discuss the continuance of a
criminal trial. Following that meeting, Haileab allegedly returned to the DA’s Office
and told senior members of the DA’s Office that Melchiorre had called Haileab’s
supervisor, a female Senior ADA, a derogatory and vulgar name (“c*nt”).
Melchiorre denied that he called the Senior ADA a derogatory name. Melchiorre
alleged that Haileab made the statement to deflect criticism from his supervisors
regarding his poor job performance, and the statement was not made within his
official duties.
              Melchiorre further alleged that, as a result of Haileab’s statements, the
Senior ADA reported the statements to the DA’s Office’s Acting Chief Integrity
Officer, who, in turn, reported the statements to the Deputy DA. According to the
Complaint, the Acting Chief Integrity Officer and the Deputy DA then reported the
alleged statement to the Philadelphia Bar Association. Thereafter, the Philadelphia
Bar Association downgraded its endorsement of Melchiorre, who was then running
in the upcoming election to keep his appointed seat, from “recommended” to “not
recommended.” Complaint, ¶12; Reproduced Record at 4a. As a result of the
downgrade in the endorsement, Melchiorre claimed that he lost several other
endorsements, and ultimately lost his bid to obtain a ballot position as a Democratic

                                           2
candidate in the 2017 General Election for one of several open seats to serve as a
judge on the trial court.
                Melchiorre’s Complaint set forth causes of action against Haileab for
defamation, false light, and tortious interference with contractual relations. The
Complaint also set forth the same claims against the DA’s Office with an additional
claim that the DA’s Office was vicariously liable for its employees’ defamatory
publications.
                In response, Haileab and the DA’s Office both filed Preliminary
Objections (POs) to the Complaint.         Haileab asserted, among other defenses,
absolute immunity from civil liability as a high public official for statements that he
allegedly made within the scope of his authority as an ADA. The DA’s Office
preliminarily objected on the grounds that the Complaint failed to allege that the
DA’s Office had acted with actual malice when it reported the alleged statements
and that it was entitled to governmental immunity under Sections 8541-42 of the
Judicial Code, commonly referred to as the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act,
42 Pa. C.S. §§8541-42.
                By order dated March 4, 2019, the trial court sustained the DA’s
Office’s POs and dismissed it from the case. However, the trial court overruled
Haileab’s POs. The trial court determined that discovery was necessary to ascertain
whether Haileab was entitled to high public official immunity.
                Haileab appealed the trial court’s order to this Court asserting
jurisdiction on the basis that the order was a collateral order as defined by
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 313, Pa. R.A.P. 313 (Rule 313). We
disagreed. We determined that the denial of Haileab’s POs asserting high public
official immunity was not separable from the main cause of action. We explained

                                           3
that Melchiorre’s Complaint alleged specific conduct by Haileab that, if proven,
would fall outside the scope of Haileab’s official duties as an ADA. Because further
factual development through discovery was necessary, we declined to invoke the
collateral order doctrine to resolve the immunity question. Thus, we quashed
Haileab’s appeal. See Melchiorre v. Haileab (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 741 C.D. 2019, filed
March 15, 2021).
             Thereafter, the parties engaged in discovery. Following the close of
discovery, Haileab filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking judgment on the
tortious interference claim, which Melchiorre did not contest, and reasserting
absolute immunity as a high public official. On October 20, 2021, the trial court
granted the Motion for Summary Judgment, in part, and entered judgment in
Haileab’s favor with respect to Melchiorre’s tortious interference claims.
             However, the trial court otherwise denied the Motion and specifically
rejected Haileab’s absolute immunity defense. After summarizing the standard for
summary judgment motions, the trial court explained:

             Summary judgment may be entered only in cases that are
             clear and free from doubt. No matter how unlikely it
             might appear that the non-moving party might prevail, any
             possibility of that even occurring is sufficient to defeat
             such motion. Reviewing the record in the light most
             favorable to the non-moving party requires not only that
             all contested facts be resolved in favor of the non-moving
             party but all reasonable inferences from those facts must
             be drawn in favor of the non-moving party. Viewed in this
             light, the record does not support [Haileab]’s contention
             that there is no possibility that [Melchiorre] could prevail.
             We again reject the concept that [Haileab] in this case is
             entitled to absolute immunity. [Haileab] relies heavily
             upon prior statements but for the most part, if not entirely,
             these statements are not judicial admissions and are not
             binding on [Melchiorre] even if they are his own
             statements.
                                          4
Trial Court Order, 10/20/21, at 1 n.1 (emphasis in original).
              In the trial court’s Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion that followed, the trial
court recognized that absolute immunity exempts a high public official from all civil
suits provided the statements are made within the course of the official’s duties or
power and within the scope of his authority. However, the trial court determined “it
is not clear and free from doubt that the record in this case, excluding testimonial
statements by which [Melchiorre] is not bound, mandates a finding that [Haileab’s]
actions were taken in the course of his official duties or powers and within the scope
of his authority.” Trial Court Op., 1/24/22, at 2. This appeal now follows. 2 In
response, Melchiorre filed a Motion to Quash asserting that this Court lacks
jurisdiction on the basis that the order appealed from is not a collateral order, which
we address first.3
              Melchiorre contends that Haileab’s appeal should be quashed for a lack
of jurisdiction because the order appealed is not a collateral order as defined by Rule
313(a) because it does not satisfy all three elements of the collateral order rule of
separability, importance, and irreparable loss. First, Melchiorre argues that the trial
court’s order relating to absolute immunity is not separable because it is inextricably
intertwined to the main cause of action. Second, he maintains that, if review of the
order is postponed, Haileab’s claim will not be irreparably lost because the trial court
may rule on summary judgment before trial.
              Rule 313 governs collateral orders and provides:

       2
          “This Court’s review of a trial court’s order granting or denying a motion for summary
judgment is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion or an
error of law.” Sacco v. Township of Butler, 863 A.2d 611, 613 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).

       3
         Haileab filed an unopposed Application for Stay of Trial Pending Appeal, which this
Court granted on September 19, 2022.
                                               5
             (a) General rule.--An appeal may be taken as of right from
             a collateral order of a trial court or other government unit.

             (b) Definition.--A collateral order is [(1)] an order
             separable from and collateral to the main cause of action
             [(2)] where the right involved is too important to be denied
             review and [(3)] 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. In short, Rule 313 tests “separability, importance, and irreparable
loss.” Brooks v. Ewing Cole, Inc., 259 A.3d 359, 364 (Pa. 2021). “[W]here an order
satisfies Rule 313’s three-pronged test, an appellate court may exercise jurisdiction
even though the order is not final.” Id. at 370.
             “If the test is not met, however, and in the absence of another exception
to the final order rule, there is no jurisdiction to consider an appeal of such an order.”
Brooks, 259 A.3d at 370. “As an exception to the rule of finality, the collateral order
rule is interpreted narrowly, and each prong must be satisfied before an order will
be considered on appeal.” Sylvan Heights Realty Partners, L.L.C. v. LaGrotta, 940
A.2d 585, 587 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008); see Brooks, 259 A.3d at 373.
             It is well settled that “an immunity defense does not, in and of itself,
entitle a litigant to appellate review of an interlocutory order.” Gwiszcz v. City of
Philadelphia, 550 A.2d 880, 881 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988). Because this appeal requires
us to determine whether a decision denying Haileab’s official immunity defense
meets the collateral order doctrine, we examine the general principles of official
immunity.
             The common law doctrine of “high official immunity” insulates “high-
ranking public officials” from all statements made and acts taken in the course of
their official duties. Feldman v. Hoffman, 107 A.3d 821, 826 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
DAs and ADAs are considered high public officials entitled to such protection for

                                            6
statements made in the course of their official duties. Durham v. McElynn, 772 A.2d
68, 69 (Pa. 2001). The statements and actions must be “closely related” to the
performance of official duties. McCormick v. Specter, 275 A.2d 688, 689 (Pa. Super.
1971).
            In Lindner v. Mollan, 677 A.2d 1194, 1195 (Pa. 1996), our Supreme
Court explained:

            [T]he doctrine of absolute privilege for high public
            officials, as its name implies, is unlimited and exempts a
            high public official from all civil suits for damages arising
            out of false defamatory statements and even from
            statements or actions motivated by malice, provided the
            statements are made or the actions are taken in the course
            of the official’s duties or powers and within the scope of
            his authority, or as it is sometimes expressed, within his
            jurisdiction.

                                        ***

            [It is] designed to protect the official from the suit itself,
            from the expense, publicity, and danger of defending the
            good faith of his public actions before the jury. And yet,
            beyond this lies a deeper purpose, the protection of
            society’s interest in the unfettered discussion of public
            business and in full public knowledge of the facts and
            conduct of such business.
(Citations omitted and emphasis added).
            Indeed, “the public interest is best served by granting broad immunity
to high-ranking officers . . . .” Feldman, 107 A.3d at 826-27. As our Supreme Court
observed, promoting the “unfettered discharge of public business and full public
knowledge of the facts and conduct of such business.           [High public official]
immunity is thus a means of removing any inhibition which might deprive the public

                                          7
of the best service of its officers and agencies.” Montgomery v. City of Philadelphia,
140 A.2d 100, 103-04 (Pa. 1958).
             To illustrate, in Sylvan Heights, prospective purchasers of a county
nursing home brought action against a member of the Pennsylvania House of
Representatives for tortious interference with a contract, alleging that the
representative’s actions caused the county to breach its contract with purchasers.
The purchasers alleged that the representative’s tortious conduct was outside the
scope of his jurisdiction and duties as a state legislator.        The representative
interposed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on immunity. The trial
court denied the motion and the representative appealed. The purchasers filed a
motion to quash on the basis that the order was not a collateral order. We determined
that, although the right to assert official immunity is of sufficient importance to
satisfy the second element, the first and third elements were not met.
             With regard to the first element, we explained:

             Distilled to its essence, [the representative’s] argument is
             that the Speech or Debate Clause allows any legislator to
             avoid trial, or even discovery, in any matter, wherein the
             alleged tortious conduct has even a tangential connection
             with the legislator’s official duties. The [purchasers] here
             have alleged conduct which, if proven, would be clearly
             outside the legislative sphere.
Sylvan Heights, 940 A.2d at 588. Because the immunity issue was not separable
from the main action, we granted the motion to quash. Id.; see also Bollinger by
Carraghan v. Obrecht, 552 A.2d 359, 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (quashing an appeal
from the denial of summary judgment, where “[t]he affirmative immunity defenses[]
being asserted in the pleadings[] raise[d] factual and legal issues to be decided in the

                                           8
main cause of action"); Pescatore v. School District of Philadelphia (Pa. Cmwlth.,
No. 1072 C.D. 2014, filed February 27, 2015) (same).4
              More recently, in Brooks, our Supreme Court examined the three-prong
collateral order test in the context of the analogous sovereign immunity doctrine. 5
There, a courthouse visitor brought a personal injury action against the family court
and others after she was allegedly injured while walking into an unmarked glass wall
at the family court building. The family court moved for summary judgment
asserting sovereign immunity, which the trial court denied. The family court
appealed. This Court quashed the appeal. On further appeal, the Supreme Court
reversed and remanded upon determining that the family court’s motion for
summary judgment on the defense of sovereign immunity was immediately
appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Brooks, 259 A.3d at 374-75.
              The Supreme Court agreed with our analysis regarding the first two
prongs. Brooks, 259 A.3d at 371-72. First, the order was separable from the
underlying negligence action because the issue of whether the family court was a
“Commonwealth party” entitled to immunity could be resolved independent of a
consideration of the negligence claim. Id. at 372. Second, the right involved --
sovereign immunity -- “implicates public policy concerns that extend beyond the
parties to the instant litigation, as its resolution will dictate whether a member of the
general public may maintain a negligence action against the courts.” Id. at 364. The
issue on appeal was whether the third prong was met.                The Supreme Court

       4
        Unreported memorandum opinions of this Court may be cited for their persuasive value
pursuant to Rule 126(b)(1) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa. R.A.P.
126(b)(1), and Section 414(a) of the Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code
§69.414(a).

       5
        See Sections 8521-8527 of the Judicial Code, commonly referred to as the Sovereign
Immunity Act, 42 Pa. C.S. §§8521-27.
                                             9
determined it was met, explaining that the immunity afforded to public official
defendants should be immediately appealable because the immunity “is irreparably
lost if appellate review of an adverse decision on [the] immunity is postponed until
after final judgment.” Id. at 373.
             Based on the foregoing, there is no doubt that the importance and
irreparable loss prongs are clearly met here. See Brooks. The crux of the matter is
whether the separability prong is also met. In support of the separability prong,
Haileab relies on Durham, for the position that an ADA is always entitled to official
immunity.
             In Durham, an inmate filed a tort action against his prosecutor alleging
that the prosecutor violated various constitutional rights in the course of his
prosecution. The prosecutor filed preliminary objections claiming immunity from
suit for actions taken in his capacity as a prosecutor, which the trial court granted.
On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the prosecutor was immune
from suit for action taken in his official capacity under the doctrine of “absolute
immunity.” Durham, 772 A.2d at 70. The Supreme Court opined:

             The public interest requires that district attorneys be able
             to carry out their duties without being hampered by civil
             suits claiming damages for actions taken in their official
             capacities. The public would indeed suffer if the
             prosecution of criminals were impeded, as would be the
             case if district attorneys were not accorded absolute
             immunity.
Id.
             However, Durham is readily distinguishable from the case here. In
Durham, the inmate alleged, and there was no dispute that, the prosecutor made the
statements during the course of his official duties. See Durham, 772 A.2d at 69.
Such is not the case here. It is hotly contested whether Haileab made the statements
                                         10
within the course of his official duties. Melchiorre produced evidence in support of
his claims that Haileab made the comments outside the scope of his official duties.
Although Melchiorre admits to having a conversation with Haileab in which he
expressed his displeasure with the DA’s Office, Melchiorre denies that he ever used
the “C” word or that the conversation had anything to do with matters that the ADA
was litigating. Original Record at 405, 421.6 Melchiorre claims that Haileab’s
statements were fabricated and said for his personal gain to divert attention away
from his lack of diligence and effectiveness in litigating criminal cases. See id. at
288, 306, 422.      Melchiorre also contends that Haileab regretted making the
comments and wanted to apologize to, or smooth things over with, Melchiorre. See
id. at 1339; see also id. at 751-54, 1328-29. Melchiorre avers that Haileab did not
just make the alleged defamatory statements to his supervisors at the DA’s Office,
but he repeated the statements to other persons outside of the DA’s Office in casual
contexts, including to friends while out drinking. Id. at 732-33.
              Upon review, the question of whether immunity applies will require the
factfinder to review the evidence and determine whether Haileab made the
statements for a purpose closely related to his prosecutorial functions or for his own
self-interest and gain. Consequently, the issue of whether Haileab is entitled to
immunity cannot be resolved independent of a consideration of the tort claim. Under
the circumstances here, the issue of immunity is not separable from and collateral to
the main cause of action. See Sylvan.

       6
        Because the Original Record was filed electronically and was not paginated, the page
numbers referenced herein reflect electronic pagination.
                                            11
             For these reasons, we grant Melchiorre’s Motion to Quash and quash
Haileab’s appeal.

                                       MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

Judge Dumas did not participate in the decision of this case.

                                         12
          IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Vincent N. Melchiorre                  :
                                       :
          v.                           : No. 1186 C.D. 2021
                                       :
Simon Haileab, Esquire,                :
                                       :
                          Appellant    :

                                      ORDER

               AND NOW, this 27th day of February, 2023, we GRANT Vincent N.
Melchiorre’s Motion to Quash and QUASH Simon Haileab’s appeal from the
October 20, 2021 order of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas (trial
court).

                                       __________________________________
                                       MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge