Opinion
J-A21031-13 No. 3230 EDA 2012
10-28-2013
FRANKLIN BROWN AND KAREN BROWN, Appellants v. DUANE MORRIS, LLP, ISAAC NEUBERGER, ET AL, Appellees
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered October 1, 2012,
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Civil Division, at No. 2011-CV-000283.
BEFORE: SHOGAN, WECHT & COLVILLE, JJ. DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
I recognize that this Court held in Tessier v. Pietrangelo, 522 A.2d 88 (Pa. Super. 1987) that a local court rule dispensing with oral argument for all motions, except as required by the judge, was invalid as it directly conflicted with Pa.R.C.P. 211. However, for the reasons that follow, I cannot conclude that the trial court erred in denying oral argument in the case sub judice. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
In Gerace v. Holmes Protection of Philadelphia, 516 A.2d 354 (Pa. Super. 1986), this Court reiterated that Rule 211 gives every party a qualified right to make an oral argument and in a given case, the trial court may dispense with oral argument if it so desires. Id. at 359. In Gerace, the trial judge refused to hear argument on a summary judgment motion because extensive depositions and affidavits were already submitted to the court and argument would have been redundant. Id. This Court concluded that the plaintiff in Gerace was not prejudiced by the denial of oral argument because the record presented to the trial court was extensive and oral argument would not have enhanced or altered the materials presented to the court. Id. Hence, it is within the discretion of the trial court to decide whether the issues raised can best be resolved by briefs and/or oral argument or whether the matter can best be disposed of by review of the record alone. Id.; see also Myszkowski v. Penn Stroud Hotel, Inc., 634 A.2d 622 (Pa. Super. 1993) (finding no abuse of discretion when appellant was denied the opportunity to orally argue her opposition to a motion for summary judgment, citing Gerace ).
It is my understanding that there was an extensive record before the trial court in this matter and that the trial court was aware of the legal positions of the parties. The record included, among other documents, a twenty-nine-page petition to open (which included a five-page petition and four lengthy exhibits), a one-page request for oral argument, an eight-page memorandum of law in support of the petition to open, an eight-page response to the petition to open filed by Duane Morris, Duane Morris's eight-page memorandum of law in response to the petition to open, and a three- page response to the petition to open filed by Neuberger Quinn Gielen Rubin & Gibber and Isaac Neuberger. I fail to see how Appellants were prejudiced in this case and conclude there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in ruling on the petition to open without holding oral argument. Therefore, I dissent from the majority's position, conclude that this claim lacks merit, and would address the other issues presented in the appeal.