Court Opinion

ID: 9957601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 17:15:29.149325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:26.403379
License: Public Domain

J-A07018-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    CORY YEDLOSKY AND CHRIS TAYLOR :              IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                   :                   PENNSYLVANIA
                   Appellants      :
                                   :
                                   :
             v.                    :
                                   :
                                   :
    PENNSYLVANIA STATE             :              No. 1074 MDA 2023
    CORRECTIONS OFFICERS           :
    ASSOCIATION, LOCAL SCI-        :
    HUNTINGDON, BRYAN PERONI, AND :
    PENNSYLVANIA STATE             :
    CORRECTIONS OFFICERS           :
    ASSOCIATION

                  Appeal from the Order Entered June 27, 2023
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County
                      Civil Division at No(s): 2019-12791

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                    FILED: APRIL 4, 2024

       Cory Yedlosky and Chris Taylor (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from

the order granting summary judgment in favor of the Pennsylvania State

Corrections Officers Association, Local SCI-Huntingdon (“Local”), Bryan Peroni

(“Peroni”), and the Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association

(“Association”).1 We transfer this matter to the Commonwealth Court.
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The court stated that “as all charges against all defendants have been
resolved via summary judgment, this matter is closed.” Order, 6/27/23, at 1.
We note Appellants originally named Appellees and two individual defendants,
Peroni and Douglas Clark (“Clark”), Local’s former secretary. With respect to
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A07018-24

       Association is a public employees’ union registered as a non-profit.

Local is Association’s chapter for corrections officers at SCI-Huntingdon.

Peroni was Local’s treasurer until 2018. Appellants were corrections officers

at SCI-Huntingdon and members of Local. Appellants became suspicious that

Local’s officials were misusing funds. An internal audit and a later criminal

investigation confirmed their suspicions.        Peroni has been charged and

convicted of theft for misappropriating funds from Local, and the criminal

investigation appears to be ongoing.

____________________________________________

Appellants’ prior complaints, the trial court previously struck Appellants’
claims of a duty of fair representation against Appellees and unjust enrichment
against individual defendants. See Order, 5/12/20, at 1. Appellants later
discontinued their claims against Clark individually. See Order, 1/25/21, at
1.

We also note that the fourth amended complaint named as a plaintiff a third
individual, William Weyandt (“Weyandt”). It appears that Weyandt died
during the litigation of this matter. See Notice of Death, 11/10/21. Appellants
filed a praecipe to withdraw Weyandt and remove him as a plaintiff. See
Praecipe, 11/3/22.

Lastly, Appellants’ Rule 1925(b) statement alleged errors with respect to
Association and Local only.       See Rule 1925(b) Statement, 8/18/23,
unnumbered at 1-2. Furthermore, Appellants filed in this Court a notice of no
interest in which they claimed Peroni does not have an interest in this appeal.
Peroni has not responded or filed a brief.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the June 27, 2023 order granting
summary judgment is a final order. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1) (stating that a
final order is one that disposes of all claims and of all parties). However, the
issues raised in this appeal involve only Appellants claims against Association
and Local.

                                           -2-
J-A07018-24

      In 2019, Appellants commenced the underlying action by writ of

summons.     In their fourth amended complaint, Appellants referenced the

constitutions,   by-laws,   and   policies   (“the   governing   documents”)    of

Association and Local (hereinafter, “Appellees”), and in Counts I and II,

Appellants claimed Appellees’ governing documents created express and

implied contracts with union members.         See Fourth Amended Complaint,

2/16/21, at 13-15; see also Exhibits A to C attached to the Fourth Amended

Complaint.    Specifically, Appellants asserted that Appellees breached their

contractual and fiduciary duties by allowing the improper uses of Appellees’

funds for personal and/or non-business purposes and by failing to comply with

their governing documents. See id. at 13-15. Appellants asserted harms

based on their reliance on promises and benefits they expected from

Appellees, including proper oversight of funds. See id. at 14-15. Appellants

demanded, inter alia, a return of their dues. See id.

      The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On June 27,

2023, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees and

against Appellants on all claims. See Order, 6/27/23. The court assumed,

without deciding, that the governing documents stated the terms of a contract

between Appellees and Appellants.        See id. at 3-4.     The court similarly

assumed, but did not decide, that Appellees breached the governing

agreements. See id. at 4. Nevertheless, the court determined that Appellants

failed to establish damages.      See id. at 4-6, 10-11.         Appellants timely

appealed, and they and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

                                      -3-
J-A07018-24

      Appellants raise the following question for our review:

      Whether the standard for evaluation of contractual damages,
      rather than the foreseeability doctrine for tort damages, applies
      where the existence of a contract and instances of breach are
      undisputed.

Appellants’ Brief at 2.

      Before addressing the merits of Appellants’ issue, we consider whether

we should transfer this matter to the Commonwealth Court.        See Mohn v.

Bucks County Republican Committee, 218 A.3d 927, 930 (Pa. Super.

2019) (en banc); Smith v. Ivy Lee Real Estate, LLC, 152 A.3d 1062, 1065

(Pa. Super. 2016). We recognize that Appellants have perfected this appeal,

and the parties have not contested this Court’s jurisdiction. However, this

Court may, sua sponte, raise the issue of whether an appeal should be

transferred to the Commonwealth Court. See Smith, 152 A.3d at 1065 (Pa.

Super. 2016).

      Our decision to retain jurisdiction or transfer an appeal balances the

interests of judicial economy with other factors, including: “(1) whether the

case has already been transferred; (2) whether retaining jurisdiction will

disrupt the legislatively ordained division of labor between the intermediate

appellate courts; and (3) whether there is a possibility of establishing two

conflicting lines of authority on a particular subject.” Smith, 152 A.3d at 1065

(internal citation omitted). “We examine each potential transfer on a case-

by-case basis.”   Id. (internal citation and quotations omitted).    Moreover,

Mohn instructs that “[i]f any potential substantive issue (or participation of a

                                     -4-
J-A07018-24

particular party) invokes the Commonwealth Court’s jurisdiction, transfer is

appropriate . . ..” Mohn 218 A.3d at 934.

       Title 15 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes governs the affairs of

corporations. This includes “corporations not-for-profit,” which section 102

defines as “[a] domestic or foreign corporation not incorporated for a purpose

or purposes involving pecuniary profit, incidental or otherwise, whether or not

it is a cooperative corporation.” 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 102. Although it appears that

neither Association nor Local are incorporated under Pennsylvania law, they

also appear to be organized and registered as nonprofit entities.2 Therefore,

Appellees’ internal affairs are governed by Title 15, Chapter 91, known as

Pennsylvania Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act (the “Act”).

See 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 9112, Comment (noting that the Act applies to “all

nonprofit associations, whether they be classified as religious, public benefit

or mutual benefit or whether they are classified as tax-exempt,” which

includes unincorporated unions).

       Section 762(a)(5) provides that the Commonwealth Court has exclusive

jurisdiction from final orders of the courts of common pleas in:

       (i) All actions or proceedings relating to corporations not-for-profit
       arising under Title 15 (relating to corporations and unincorporated
       associations) or where is drawn in question the application,
       interpretation or enforcement of any provision of the Constitution,
       treaties or laws of the United States, or the Constitution of
       Pennsylvania or any statute, regulating in any such case the
       corporate affairs of any corporation not-for-profit subject to Title
____________________________________________

2 Appellees’ counsel conceded as much at oral arguments.

                                           -5-
J-A07018-24

       15 or the affairs of the members, security holders, directors,
       officers, employees or agents thereof, as such.

       (ii) All actions or proceedings otherwise involving the corporate
       affairs of any corporation not-for-profit subject to Title 15 or the
       affairs of the members, security holders, directors, officers, or
       employees or agents thereof, as such.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 762(a)(5) (emphasis added). Although section 762(a)(5) uses

the   term    “corporation     not-for-profit,”   the   Commonwealth   Court    has

recognized that section 762(a)(5) provides it with jurisdiction over appeals

involving the affairs of unincorporated nonprofit associations as well.3

____________________________________________

3Following this Court’s transfer of Mohn to the Commonwealth Court, the
Commonwealth Court noted:

       [W]e have been conferred with appellate jurisdiction pursuant to
       [s]ection 762(a)(5)(ii) of the Judicial Code, which states that this
       “Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from final orders
       of the courts of common pleas in all actions or proceedings
       otherwise involving the corporate affairs of any corporation not-
       for-profit subject to Title 15 or the affairs of the members,
       directors, officers, or agents thereof.” See also Comment to
       Section 9112 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Unincorporated
       Nonprofit Association Law (Nonprofit Association Law), 15 Pa.C.S.
       § 9112 cmt. (“This chapter applies to all nonprofit associations,
       whether they be classified as religious, public benefit or mutual
       benefit or whether they are classified as tax exempt. Therefore,
       the chapter covers unincorporated philanthropic, educational,
       scientific, social and literary clubs, unions, trade associations, and
       political organizations, such as political parties”).

Mohn v. Bucks County Republican Comm., No. 24 C.D. 2018, 2020 WL
1079247, at *1 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (unreported opinion) see also
Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (unreported memorandum opinion of the Commonwealth
Court filed after January 15, 2008 may be cited for their persuasive value).
Because the appellee in Mohn, the Bucks County Republican Committee, was
a nonprofit association, the Commonwealth Court agreed with our decision to
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -6-
J-A07018-24

       Here, Appellants have couched their claims against Appellee in terms of

a contract action.       See Fourth Amended Complaint, 2/16/21, at 13-15.

However, it is apparent their claims implicate how Appellees managed their

affairs pursuant to their own governing documents. See id. Such affairs are

specifically governed by the Act. Cf. 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 9129 (discussing duties

and actions by managers). Therefore, we conclude that this appeal falls within

the Commonwealth Court’s jurisdiction and, pursuant to section 762(a)(5),

falls within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court. See Mohn, 218 A.3d

934.

       Aside from judicial economy concerns, we discern no reason to retain

jurisdiction over this appeal. The appeal concerns the internal affairs of a

nonprofit, an issue over which the Commonwealth Court has greater

experience than this Court. There could be a potential for creating conflicting

lines of authority given the Commonwealth Court’s expertise in the affairs of

a nonprofit and this Court’s resolution of Appellants’ ostensible contractual

claims based on the governing documents. Therefore, we conclude this appeal

involves matters best resolved by the Commonwealth Court. See Mohn, 218

A.3d at 930; Smith, 152 A.3d at 1065.

       Appeal transferred to the Commonwealth Court.
____________________________________________

transfer that appeal to it. Cf. Reick v. Weekday Ministries Child Care Ctr.,
245 A.3d 1104, 2020 WL 7706757, at *3-5 (Pa. Super. 2020) (unpublished
memorandum); see also Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (unpublished non-precedential
memorandum decisions of the Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be
cited for their persuasive value).

                                           -7-
J-A07018-24

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 04/04/2024

                           -8-