Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-0108 CDI-INFRASTRUCTURE, LLC : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF d/b/a L.R. KIMBALL , : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PETITIONER : : V. : : NAVTECH, INC., : RESPONDENT : 13-0108 CIVIL TERM IN RE: AMENDED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION TO ENFORCE AWARD OF ARBITRATOR AND MOTION TO VACATE AWARD OF ARBITRATOR BEFORE HESS, P.J., MASLAND, J., AND PECK, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., April 17, 2013: -- Before the court are the Amended Preliminary Objections filed by Petitioner, CDI- Infrastructure, LLC, to the Answer to Petition to Enforce Award of Arbitrator and Motion to Vacate Award of Arbitrator filed by Respondent, NavTech, Inc. After briefing by the parties and argument en banc, we now overrule the preliminary objections in accordance with the following opinion and order of court. I. Introduction Petitioner,CDI-Infrastructure, Inc. filed a Petition to Enforce Arbitration Award on January 7, 2013. In response to the Petition, on January 30, 2013, Respondent, NavTech, Inc., filed an Answer to Petition to Enforce Award of Arbitrator and Motion to Vacate Award of Arbitrator. Petitioner filed Preliminary Objections to Respondent’s Answer to Petition to Enforce Award of Arbitrator and Motion to Vacate Award of Arbitrator on February 4, 2013. On February 21, 2013, Respondent filed Preliminary Objections to Petitioner’s 13-0108 CIVIL TERM Preliminary Objections. On March 11, 2013, Petitioner filed Amended Preliminary Objections to Respondent’s Answer and Motion. Petitioner objects that Respondent’s challenge to the arbitration award through its Answer and Motion was waived by Respondent’s failure to challenge the award within thirty (30) days from the date of arbitration. II. Facts Petitioner is a limited liability company under the laws of Delaware with a principal place of business in Edensburg, Pennsylvania. Pet. to Enforce Award of Arbitrator ¶ 3. Respondent is a corporation under the laws of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business in New Bloomfield, Pennsylvania. Id. ¶ 4. Petitioner’s predecessor in interest, L. Robert Kimball & Associates, Inc. entered into a subcontract with Respondent, which required Respondent to provide survey information to Petitioner to enable Petitioner to design a bridge for Trumball Corporation. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. Petitioner and Respondent had a dispute over the services provided by Respondent. Id. ¶ 8. Pursuant to the parties subcontract, Petitioner filed a Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association on July 9, 2012. Id. ¶ 9. Arbitration was held in Cumberland County on November 14, 2012, and an award was entered in favor of Petitioner on November 17, 2012. Id. ¶ 10-11. Petitioner filed a Petition to Enforce the Award of Arbitrator on January 2, 2013. Id. ¶ 11. Respondent filed an Answer and Motion to Vacate the Award on January 30, 2013 challenging the Arbitration Award on the grounds that the subcontract between the parties required that the arbitration take place in Allegheny County rather than Cumberland County. Ans. to Pet. to Enforce Award of Arbitrator and Mot. to Vacate -2- 13-0108 CIVIL TERM Award of Arbitrator ¶¶ 1-2. Petitioner filed Preliminary Objections on February 4, 2013 and Amended Preliminary Objections on March 11, 2013 in which Petitioner objects that Respondent failed to challenge the arbitration agreement within the required 30 days provided under the Uniform Arbitration Act. Am. Prelim. Objections to Resp’t’s Ans. to Pet. to Enforce Award of Arbitrator and Mot. to Vacate Award of Arbitrator ¶ 4. III. Discussion Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028 permits preliminary objections to be filed by any party “to any pleading . . . .” Pa.R.C.P. 1017 limits the definition of a pleading in part to complaints, answers, replies containing new matters, and preliminary objections. Notably, in its definition of a pleading Pa.R.C.P. 1017 does not include a petition, an answer to a petition or a motion. In the present matter, Petitioner has filed Preliminary Objections to Respondent’s Answer to a Petition and Motion to Vacate, which are responses to a Petition to Enforce. Respondent’s Answer and Motion are not pleadings under Pa.R.C.P. 1017 because Pa.R.C.P. 1017 does not include petitions and responses thereto in its definition of pleading. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028, Petitioner cannot file preliminary objections to Respondent’s Answer and Motion because the Answer and Motion are not pleadings. Although there may be merit to Petitioner’s claims, we will not circumvent the rules to address them at this time. Consequently, Petitioner’s Amended Preliminary Objections are overruled because they do not conform with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. -3- 13-0108 CIVIL TERM III. Conclusion ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _________ day of April, 2013, the preliminary objections filed by OVERRULED Petitioner are . By the Court, _________________________ Albert H. Masland, J. G. William Myers, Esquire For Petitioner Matthew Ridley, Esquire For Respondent -4- CDI-INFRASTRUCTURE, LLC : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF d/b/a L.R. KIMBALL, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PETITIONER : : V. : : NAVTECH, INC., : RESPONDENT : 13-0108 CIVIL TERM IN RE: AMENDED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION TO ENFORCE AWARD OF ARBITRATOR AND MOTION TO VACATE AWARD OF ARBITRATOR BEFORE HESS, P.J., MASLAND, J., AND PECK, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _________ day of April, 2013, the preliminary objections filed by OVERRULED Petitioner are . By the Court, _________________________ Albert H. Masland, J. G. William Myers, Esquire For Petitioner Matthew Ridley, Esquire For Respondent