Court Opinion

ID: 9942629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 17:10:43.479524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:21.717165
License: Public Domain

J-A01004-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  SERGEI KOVALEV                               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  BORIS RUBINSTEIN, DMD AND                    :   No. 2396 EDA 2022
  GRACE WOO, DMD AND YES                       :
  DENTAL, PC                                   :

              Appeal from the Order Entered August 24, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
                            No(s): 220201916

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and COLINS, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, P.J.:                     FILED FEBRUARY 21, 2024

       Sergei Kovalev appeals, pro se, from the order, entered in the Court of

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, sustaining preliminary objections filed

by Boris Rubinstein, D.M.D., and Yes Dental, P.C. (“Yes”), and dismissing

Kovalev’s complaint with prejudice. In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial

court contends that, while it properly sustained the preliminary objections and

dismissed the claims against Dr. Rubinstein and Yes, it erroneously dismissed

the entire complaint, as Kovalev’s claims against Grace Woo, D.M.D., remain

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A01004-24

pending.1 As a result, the court requests that we reverse that portion of the

order dismissing Kovalev’s entire complaint. We quash the appeal.2

       Because Kovalev’s claims against Dr. Woo were erroneously dismissed,

it is clear that Kovalev’s appeal of the order sustaining the preliminary

objections of Dr. Rubinstein and Yes is premature. “[T]he 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).      Appellate courts generally have jurisdiction only over

appeals taken from a final order. In re Bridgeport Fire Litigation, 51 A.3d

224, 229 (Pa. Super. 2012). A final order is one that “disposes of all claims

and of all parties [or] is entered as a final order pursuant to subdivision (c)[3]

of this rule[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 341(b).
____________________________________________

1 Kovalev suggests in his appellate brief that he has settled his claims against

Dr. Woo. See Brief of Appellant, at 16 (“Defendant [Dr.] Grace Woo was a
part of this legal action but as of present time, she is excluded . . . from this
appeal . . . due to the conditions reached between [Kovalev] and [Dr.] Woo.”).
However, there is no notation on the trial court docket indicating that Kovalev
has withdrawn his claims against Dr. Woo. As of the date this appeal was
filed, Dr. Woo had filed an answer and new matter, to which Kovalev had
replied, and the claims against her were still pending. See Docket Entries 13
and 16.

2 Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(1), a trial court retains the authority to correct

its order even after an appeal is taken. See Pa.R.A.P 1701(b)(1) (trial court
has authority to “correct formal errors in papers relating to the matter” even
after an appeal is taken and the time period under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 has
expired). As such, we instruct the trial judge to do so upon remittal of the
record on appeal.

3 Rule 341(c) provides:

(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -2-
J-A01004-24

       Here, because Kovalev’s claims against Dr. Woo are still pending, the

court’s order is not a final one as contemplated by Rule 341(b). Accordingly,

we quash Kovalev’s appeal.

       Appeal quashed.

Date: 2/21/2024

____________________________________________

       (c) Determination of Finality. When more than one claim for relief
       is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-
       claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved,
       the trial court or other government unit may enter a final order as
       to one or more but fewer than all of the claims and parties only
       upon an express determination that an immediate appeal would
       facilitate resolution of the entire case. Such an order becomes
       appealable when entered. In the absence of such a determination
       and entry of a final order, any order or other form of decision that
       adjudicates fewer than all the claims and parties shall not
       constitute a final order.

Pa.R.A.P. 341(c). An application for a determination of finality must be filed
within 30 days of entry of the challenged order. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(c)(1).
Kovalev did not file an application for determination of finality with the trial
court.

                                           -3-
J-A01004-24

              -4-