Always Busy Consulting, Aplt. v. Babford & Company - (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-93A-2020, J-93B-2020 and J-93C-2020] [MO: Dougherty, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT ALWAYS BUSY CONSULTING, LLC, Appellant v. BABFORD & COMPANY, INC., Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : No. 11 WAP 2020 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered September 6, 2019 at No. 94 WDA 2019, quashing the Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered December 28, 2018 at Nos. GD-18005205 and GD-18-005466. ARGUED: October 22, 2020 ALWAYS BUSY CONSULTING, LLC, Appellant v. BABFORD & COMPANY, INC., Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : No. 12 WAP 2020 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered September 6, 2019 at No. 330 WDA 2019, quashing the Appeal from the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered January 31, 2019 at Nos. GD-18005205 and GD-18-005466. ARGUED: October 22, 2020 ALWAYS BUSY CONSULTING, LLC, Appellant v. BABFORD & COMPANY, INC., Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : No. 13 WAP 2020 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered September 6, 2019 at No. 387 WDA 2019, quashing the Appeal from the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered February 26, 2019 at Nos. GD-18005205 and GD-18-005466. ARGUED: October 22, 2020 CONCURRING OPINION JUSTICE MUNDY DECIDED: MARCH 25, 2021 The majority holds that “filing a single notice of appeal from a single order entered at the lead docket number for consolidated civil matters where all record information necessary to adjudication of the appeal exists, and which involves identical parties, claims and issues” does not warrant quashal, as it does not run afoul of the holding announced in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (holding separate notices of appeal must be filed where a single order resolves issues arising on more than one docket number). Maj. Op. at 16-17. The majority reaches this conclusion by distinguishing Walker from the instant case, which involves consolidated cases with identical parties and claims. Id. at 16. I join the majority opinion, as I agree with the ultimate conclusion reached in this case. However, I write to express my continued disagreement with the bright-line rule announced in Walker. In that case, I authored a concurring and dissenting opinion explaining: In the interests of justice and judicial economy, I favor continuing the practice of addressing the merits of an appeal, despite a procedural error, where the circumstances permit. Specifically, when the issues are substantially identical, where there is no objection or no prejudice would ensue, and where quashing the appeal would result in a total preclusion of the issue being addressed. Walker, 185 A.3d at 978 (Mundy, J. dissenting). My concerns regarding the strict Walker rule appear well founded in light of the case before us. Both parties have now expended a significant amount of resources, only for this Court to conclude that the harsh rule announced in Walker is not so rigid at all. I therefore concur. [J-93A-2020, J-93B-2020 and J-93C-2020] [MO: Dougherty, J.] - 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
