Court Opinion

ID: 9940573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 19:12:29.08156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:02.493779
License: Public Domain

J-A27038-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  DANIEL FASSERO, M.D.                         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  EYE CENTER OF CENTRAL                        :
  PENNSYLVANIA, LLP AND SCOTT                  :
  HARTZELL, M.D.                               :   No. 1708 MDA 2022
                                               :
                                               :
  THE EYE CENTER OF CENTRAL                    :
  PENNSYLVANIA, LLP AND SCOTT                  :
  HARZELL, M.D.                                :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  DANIEL FASSERO, M.D. AND                     :
  CENTRAL VISION EYECARE, LLC                  :
                                               :

  APPEAL OF: DANIEL FASSERO, M.D.
  & CENTRAL VISION EYECARE, LLC.

             Appeal from the Order Entered November 9, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County Civil Division at
                          No(s): CV-2018-489,
                              CV-2019-599

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                  FILED: FEBRUARY 14, 2024

       Appellants, Daniel Fassero, M.D. and Central Vision Eyecare, LLC, appeal

from the November 9, 2022 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A27038-23

Northumberland County, which granted partial summary judgment in favor of

Appellees, Eye Center of Central Pennsylvania and Scott Hartzell, M.D., in

these consolidated actions involving the alleged breach of the parties’

partnership agreement. After a careful review, we quash this appeal.

      By way of background, the trial court’s November 9, 2022 order granted

partial summary judgment in favor of Appellees with regard to Count I of the

complaint, which sought damages for misappropriation of trade secrets based

on allegations that Appellant Dr. Fassero stole superbills before leaving the

partnership, and left the issue of damages for trial. Trial court order, 11/9/22

at ¶ 1.   With regard to Count V, which requested a declaratory judgment

against Dr. Fassero, the order further declared that he has materially breached

his duty under the partnership agreement by misappropriating the Eye

Center’s superbills and patient data. Id. at ¶ 2. The November 9, 2022 order

denied summary judgment in all other respects, “with the remaining factual

determinations for the jury, including the materiality of the breaches of

contract of either party and the amount of the ‘buy out.’” Id. at ¶ 3.

      On appeal, Appellants raise a litany of claims for our review.       See

Appellants’ brief at 9-16. Before we may address the merits of these claims,

however, we must first determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain

this appeal.   A court’s jurisdiction is a threshold issue that the court may

consider at any time. See McCutcheon v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 788 A.2d

345, 349 (Pa. 2002). Accordingly, we must determine whether the trial court’s

                                     -2-
J-A27038-23

November 9, 2022 order is appealable since “the appealability of an order

directly implicates the jurisdiction of the court asked to review the order.”

Knopick v. Boyle, 189 A.3d 432, 436 (Pa.Super. 2018) (internal citation

omitted).

      Pennsylvania law makes clear that:

            [A]n appeal may be taken from: (1) a final order or
            an order certified as a final order (Pa.R.A.P. 341); (2)
            an interlocutory order as of right (Pa.R.A.P. 311); (3)
            an interlocutory order by permission (Pa.R.A.P. 312,
            1311, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 702(b)); or (4) a collateral order
            (Pa.R.A.P. 313).

Cavallo Min. Partners, LLC v. EQT Prod. Co., 298 A.3d 413, 419 (Pa.Super.

2023) (citations omitted).

      A “final order” is defined by Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure

341 as one that disposes of all the parties and all the claims, is expressly

defined as a final order by statute, or is entered as a final order pursuant to

the trial court’s determination under Rule 341(c). See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b).

      “As a general rule, an order dismissing some but not all counts of a

multi-count complaint is interlocutory and not appealable. In adhering to this

policy, the courts have sought to avoid piecemeal litigation. This court has

held that an appeal will not lie from an order granting partial summary

judgment.” Bolmgren v. State Farm, 758 A.2d 689, 690–691 (Pa.Super.

2000) (citations omitted); see also Moore Motors, Inc. v. Beaudry, 775

A.2d 869, 870 (Pa.Super. 2001) (per curiam) (quashing appeal from order

                                     -3-
J-A27038-23

granting Appellees’ motion for partial summary judgment as interlocutory and

unappealable).

       Under these circumstances, and in light of our well-established policy of

avoiding piecemeal litigation, we find that this appeal is from an interlocutory

order, as it did not dispose of all of the issues in this matter.1 These issues

presumably include the materiality of the breaches of contract of either party

and the amount of the “buy-out.” Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to decide

the merits of Appellants’ claims at this time, and thus, quash the appeal.

       Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/14/2024

____________________________________________

1 We note that the trial court’s November 9, 2022 order also does not satisfy

the strict requirements of an appealable collateral order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
313(b).

                                           -4-