Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-3517 EquityLAWCO, INC., Plaintiff Ve TIMOTHY GREENFIELD, and SCOTT PERRY, individually and t/d/b/a HYDROTECH MECHANICAL SERVICES, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY NO. 94-3517 EQUITY TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 Oler, J., March 19, 1997. In this equity case involving a covenant not to compete, Defendants have appealed to the Superior Court from a final decree enjoining further violation of the covenant and awarding damages to Plaintiff. The entry of the final decree was incident to the denial of Defendants' motion for post-trial relief following entry of a decree nisi.~ It is believed that the 27-page adjudication in this matter dated December 20, 1996, adequately set forth the court's reasoning on the issues raised in Defendants' motion for post-trial relief, with the exception of one matter raised for the first time after the adjudication, in the post-trial motion: 15. The Defendants were not afforded a fair hearing at the preliminary injunction hearing because they were not given ample time to fully cross-examine adverse witnesses nor an opportunity to present testimony which was relevant to whether or not a preliminary injunction should issue, and the conclusion of the trial Judge (sic) at that juncture influenced his perspective for the remainder ~ The terms of the decree nisi, issued on December 10, 1996, were adopted as the final decree, on February 3, 1997. See Order of Court, February 3, 1997 (denial of Defendants' motion for post- trial relief and entry of decree nisi as final decree). NO. 94-3517 EQUITY TERM of the proceeding and the error could not be cured by the trial judge allowing Defendants more time than Plaintiff at the final injunction hearing. 16. Although there was no objection on the record as to the brief amount of time allotted to Defendants at the preliminary injunction hearing, the record reflects the Court's acknowledgment of Defendants' off the record objection in chambers during the pendency of the preliminary injunction hearing in that the trial court indicates that Defendants would get more time at the final injunction hearing than Plaintiff because Plaintiff had more time at the preliminary injunction hearing.2 This opinion, addressing the issue thus stated, is written pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a). STATEMENT OF FACTS As noted in the adjudication of December 20, 1996, a preliminary injunction was issued on November 13, 1995, temporarily enjoining Defendants from further violation of the covenant not to compete sub judice.3 The hearing on the preliminary injunction was held over the course of three days.4 The transcript from the hearing consists of about 500 pages. At the hearing on the preliminary injunction, Defendants' cross-examination of witnesses called by Plaintiff (including Defendants' Motion for Post-Trial Relief, paragraphs 15-16. Opinion and Decree Nisi, December 20, 1996, slip op. at 14. The hearing was held on February 24, 1995, September 29, 1995, and October 6, 1995. NO. 94-3517 EQUITY TERM Defendant Greenfield) consumed more than 180 pages, and Defendants' direct examination of witnesses consumed abut 70 pages. Ten exhibits were also admitted on behalf of Defendants. No objection was made by Defendants that they did not have enough time to cross- examine witnesses or present evidence. The preliminary injunction issued by the court following the hearing never took effect. Plaintiff did not post the bond provided for, and the preliminary injunction was vacated.~ Trial in this case was held on July 1 and July 3, 1996. By virtue of the stipulated incorporation of several proceedings into the trial record,6 the complete trial record comprised over a thousand pages of testimony and scores of exhibits. DISCUSSION In disposing of Defendant's motion for post-trial relief and entering a final decree in favor of Plaintiff, the court did not 'find Defendants' request for relief on the basis of a lack of opportunity for cross-examination and presentation of their case at the preliminary injunction stage compelling. First, no objection on this ground was made at the time. Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1(b)(1), it is provided as follows: ~ The preliminary injunction was vacated by the Superior Court on appeal because it failed to specify a deadline for posting of the bond or other security. Order of Court, No. 920 Harrisburg 1995, February 22, 1996. See Order of Court, July 1, 1996. NO. 94-3517 EQUITY TERM Post-trial relief may not be granted unless the grounds therefor, ... if then available, were raised in pre-trial proceedings or by motion, objection, point for charge, request for findings of fact or conclusions of law, offer of proof or other appropriate method at trial .... There are many reasons for this rule, and they have been articulated in the past. See Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 457 Pa. 255, 258-59, 322 A.2d 114, 116-17 (1974). Second, the conduct of the preliminary injunction hearing was a moot issue. The preliminary injunction never took effect, the court's determinations in the preliminary injunction proceeding were not binding upon it at the trial stage,? and any perceived deficit in time allotted to Defendants at the preliminary injunction hearing was amply compensated for at the trial. Third, control over the course of a judicial proceeding is generally a matter within the sound discretion of the judge. See Posel v. Redevelopment Authority, 72 Pa. Comm. 115, 122, 456 A.2d 243, 247 (1983). The court is unable to agree with Defendants that it abused its discretion in terms of time available for direct and cross-examination by their counsel, where approximately half the hearing - representing 250 pages of transcript - was utilized for these purposes. Finally, the length of the trial record in the present case, including as it does more than a thousand pages of~ transcribed Humphreys v. Cain, 83 Pa. Commw. 176, 477 A.2d 32 (1984). 4 NO. 94-3517 EQUITY TERM testimony, does not support the proposition that either side was denied an opportunity to be heard. For these reasons, Defendants' motion for post-trial relief was not granted on the ground that Defendants had been denied a sufficient opportunity to cross- examine witnesses and present their position at the preliminary injunction stage of the case. Diane G. Radcliff, Esq. 3448 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff Rima J. Fahl, Esq. 137 North Fifth Street Allentown, PA 18102 Attorney for Defendants : rc