The Civil Procedural Rules Committee is considering amending the rules to streamline cases dealing with similar facts and legal issues.
Both Plaintiff and Defense Attorneys Express Support for Proposed Amendments to PA Civil Procedural Rules
As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considers enacting changes to how cases across multiple jurisdictions in the state are coordinated, both plaintiff and defense attorneys express their support for the suggested amendments.
While the two groups may not always see eye to eye at trial, suggested amendments to Rule 213.1 regarding the coordination of so-called tag-along cases that have been filed after a litigation has already been coordinated have elicited similar responses from both camps.
“It’s a more efficient way of handling cases with overlapping issues and at least one overlapping party,” said Blank Rome partner and litigation department co-chair Daniel Rhynhart.
Scott Cooper, a partner at Schmidt Kramer, echoed similar sentiments, sharing that the amendments will fill gaps in the rule and provide clarification regarding coordinating actions in different counties.
Proposed Amendments
The state’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee is considering amending Rule 213.1 to streamline cases dealing with similar facts and legal issues. The topic first came before the state Supreme Court in Tambellini v. Erie Insurance Exchange, where Cooper represented one of the plaintiffs, Joseph Tambellini, who, along with HTR Restaurants and other businesses, brought business interruption insurance claims against Erie after the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted their business operations. The different businesses sued the defendant in various courts across Pennsylvania, before moving to have their cases coordinated under Rule 213.1 in Allegheny County, where the first suit had been filed, citing the similarity of the claims.
The Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas had coordinated the cases filed in its docket, as well as future “tag-along” cases that had yet to be filed.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled against this determination, concluding the trial court had exceeded Rule 213.1’s authority in determining that future, similar actions against Erie could be coordinated with the litigation.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed, concluding that the coordination of actions commenced after the coordination of the existing cases wasn’t permitted. However, the court noted that the rules committee should consider Rule 213.1 and its authority regarding the topic.
The committee now proposes an amendment to Rule 213.1 subsection (f) “to allow any party of a tag-along case the option to request coordination with an already-coordinated action by filing a motion to coordinate,” tasking the court with using its discretion to determine whether the motion is appropriate. It also proposes amending the rule to include the requirement that at least one party be in common when allowing the coordination of actions.
Scott Cooper Supports Proposed Amendment to Rule 213.1
Attorney Scott Cooper supports the amendment, noting that while the issue doesn’t come up often, he believes it will solve any uncertainty surrounding it and give parties with similar claims the option to be added to an already existing case, while also prohibiting cases from automatically being coordinated to existing cases.
“It’s going to be good because then you’re not going to have, in cases involving multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants in different counties, you’re not going to have this uncertainty of what happens once the case is coordinated, if the cases are coordinated, what happens if there’s an after-filed case? It was kind of like this black hole that no one really knew what to do with,” Cooper said.
He further speculated that cases most impacted by the proposed changes could include mass torts, including mass catastrophes and injuries. He also speculated that plaintiffs may like the change since it allows the addition of more plaintiffs to a suit.
Rhynhart also believes the rule makes perfect sense for efficiency in the courts, while allowing the courts to retain their discretion to deny coordination. He also shared that he believes the amendments will be beneficial to both parties.
“The idea of adding tag-along cases after a coordination order makes it more efficient for the courts, but also easier for plaintiff’s lawyers to bring larger single cases,” Rhynhart said.
“I also see the defense side benefiting from the language about having at least one party in common, because there could be room for abuse there,” Rhynhart said. “If you’re just bringing together two unrelated sets of parties under the theory that they involve common issues of fact, and you try them together, you could easily see a defendant getting prejudiced by that situation depending on what the other defending or defendants had done.”
Rhynhart shared that he doesn’t think there will be any real pushback from one side or the other.
“I think generally, it’s good for large companies to have this added language about having one party in common,” Rhynhart said, noting there is still room for defendants to argue against coordination based on such issues as unreasonable delay or expense, inconvenience for parties, witnesses, and counsel, and so on.
The committee invites objections, comments and suggestions to the proposed amendments by the end of October via email at [email protected].