Opinion
J-S19025-17 No. 1389 MDA 2016
04-21-2017
XCBOB'S PARTS & ACCESSORIES, INC., Appellant v. ED TUCKER DISTRIBUTING, INC., T/D/B/A TUCKER ROCKY, Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered August 8, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County
Civil Division at No(s): CV-0390-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, XCBOB's Parts & Accessories, Inc. ("XCBOB"), appeals from the August 8, 2016 order granting Appellee's, Ed Tucker Distributing, Inc., t/d/b/a Tucker Rocky ("Tucker Rocky"), motion for summary judgment and dismissing Appellant's complaint with prejudice. We affirm.
The parties were in a long-standing relationship based upon an oral contract, whereby XCBOB, who sold motorcycle and ATV parts online, bought these parts from Tucker Rocky, who is a distributor/manufacturer of these parts. Following Tucker Rocky's refusal to allow XCBOB to purchase its products in June of 2015, XCBOB filed suit, alleging a breach of contract claim, a detrimental reliance/promissory estoppel claim, and demanding judgment in excess of $50,000. Subsequently, Tucker Rocky filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court.
The business arrangement existed from 2008 until 2015 with purchases by XCBOB over that period totaling more than $1,720,000. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 8/8/16, at 1.
XCBOB filed this appeal, and now raises the following two issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law when it granted [Tucker Rocky's] [m]otion for [s]ummary [j]udgment on the basis that the parties' contract was terminable at any time by either party?XCBOB's brief at 7.
2. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law when it granted [Tucker Rocky's] [m]otion for [s]ummary [j]udgment on the count for promissory estoppel?
"Our scope of review of a trial court's order granting or denying summary judgment is plenary, and our standard of review is clear: the trial court's order will be reversed only where it is
established that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion." Universal Health Services , Inc. v. Pennsylvania Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Assoc., 884 A.2d 889, 892 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted).
The entry of summary judgment is proper whenever no genuine issue of any material fact exists as to a necessary element of the cause of action. The moving party's right to summary judgment must be clear and free from doubt. We examine the record, which consists of all pleadings, as well as any depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, affidavits, and expert reports, in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, and we resolve all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact against the moving party.
Krapf v. St. Luke's Hospital , 4 A.3d 642, 649 (Pa. Super. 2010), appeal denied, 34 A.3d 831 (Pa. 2011).
LJL Transp., Inc. v. Pilot Air Freight Corp., 599 Pa. 546, 962 A.2d 639, 647 (Pa. 2009) (citations omitted).
We note that in its brief, Tucker Rocky requests that XCBOB's appeal be dismissed because XCBOB's brief was filed three days late even after this Court had granted several extensions and provided new due dates. See Pa.R.A.P. 2188 ("If an appellant fails to file his ... brief ... within the time prescribed by these rules, or with the time as extended, an appellee may move for dismissal of the matter."). However, because Tucker Rocky failed to allege prejudice, we decline to dismiss this appeal. See Stewart v. Stewart , 745 A.2d 955, 956 (Pa. Super. 1999). --------
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the thorough opinion authored by the Honorable Michael T. Hudock of the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County, dated August 8, 2016. We conclude that Judge Hudock's well-reasoned opinion accurately disposes of the two issues presented by XCBOB on appeal and we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law. See TCO at 5-6. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Hudock's opinion as our own for purposes of further appellate review and affirm the order from which this appeal arose.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/21/2017
Image materials not available for display.