Lamb McErlane PC attorneys Maureen McBride and Andrew Stafford, along with their co-counsel, Drew Salaman, secured a major victory for their client, Domus, Inc., before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, Domus, Inc. v. Signature Building Systems of PA, LLC, No. 54 MAP 2020 (June 22, 2021) (Dougherty, J.), the high Court reversed a Superior Court decision striking the transfer of a foreign judgment on jurisdictional grounds under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 4306.

The case involved a construction project in New Hampshire for Dartmouth University and a default judgment entered against Signature Building Systems of PA, LLC in the amount of approximately $300,000.  Domus moved in Lackawanna County to transfer the New Hampshire judgment to Pennsylvania, but did not include a certificate of authentication with the judgment in its papers as required.

Signature moved to strike the foreign judgment on the grounds that it was not given proper notice in New Hampshire (but, notably, not on the grounds that the certification was missing). The trial court denied Signature’s motion.

The Superior Court reversed. Finding that Domus’s failure to attach the certificate of authentication (which Signature mentioned in its brief in passing) was an issue of “jurisdictional gravity” that deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction, the court ruled that the judgment should be stricken. The court reached this conclusion even though it recognized that Signature did not include a challenge to the lack of certification in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement or its questions presented in its Superior Court brief.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Domus’s request to hear the case.

In a rare 7-0 ruling, the Supreme Court found that the Superior Court erred in concluding that the trial court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court recognized the difference between subject matter jurisdiction (or the court’s competency to a hear a general class of claims) and the court’s power to order or effect a certain result in a particular case. Noting that “jurisdiction” and “power” are often confused or used interchangeably, the Court made clear that the terms are, in fact, not synonymous. Rather, the Court held that, under the Pennsylvania Constitution and statute, Pennsylvania courts of common pleas have unlimited original jurisdiction of all actions, except where otherwise provided by law. Because nothing in the UEFJA makes authentication a jurisdictional requirement (as courts in other states have noted), the omission of the certificate of authentication did not strip the court of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Superior Court to determine, among other things, whether Signature waived its objection to the omission of the certificate.

Maureen McBride, in an article published in Law 360, noted that she was “grateful that a unanimous Supreme Court found in our client’s favor and reversed the Superior Court’s decision. We are especially grateful that the Court clarified for the bench and bar the difference between subject matter jurisdiction and judicial power to act, as these are important (but often confused) distinctions.”

At Lamb McErlane PC, McBride concentrates her practice on appellate law and commercial litigation in state and federal courts.  She is Co-Chair of the firm’s Appellate Department and a member of the Firm’s Litigation Department and Executive Committee.
mmcbride@lambmcerlane.com

Stafford concentrates his practice on complex commercial litigation, higher education law, and appellate law in state and federal courts. astafford@lambmcerlane.com