coordinate jurisdiction rule in Pennsylvania

2026Such a change of course would run afoul of the so-called coordinate jurisdiction rule—i.e., that “judges of coordinate jurisdiction sitting in the same case should not overrule each others’ decisions.” Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326, 1331 (Pa. 1995).

2026In Bratina, we noted that the coordinate jurisdiction rule provides that “judges of coordinate jurisdiction sitting in the same case should not overrule each other’s decisions.” Riccio, 705 A.2d at 424 (quoting Starr, 664 A.2d at 1329 ).

2025“Generally, the coordinate jurisdiction rule commands that upon transfer of a matter between trial judges of coordinate jurisdiction, a transferee trial judge may not alter resolution of a legal question previously decided by a transferor trial judge.” Zane v. Friends Hosp., 836 A.2d 25, 29 (Pa. 2003) (citations omitted).

2025A. Law of the Case Doctrine – Coordinate Jurisdiction Rule The coordinate jurisdiction rule is one of the distinct rules encompassed by the broader “law of the case” doctrine.7 Zane v. Friends Hospital, 836 A.2d 25, 29 (Pa. 2003).

2026Therefore, “the coordinate-jurisdiction rule does not apply to bar a substituted judge hearing post-trial motions from correcting a mistake made by [a prior] judge . . . .” Id. - 13 - J-S32018-25 June 16, 2021 (30 days after the entry of judgment in that court).

2026In Bratina, we noted that the coordinate jurisdiction rule provides that “judges of coordinate jurisdiction sitting in the same case should not overrule each other’s decisions.” Riccio, 705 A.2d at 424 (quoting Starr, 664 A.2d at 1329 ).

2026See Ryan, 813 A.2d at 794 (holding that, pursuant to the coordinate jurisdiction rule, a later motion should not be entertained or granted when a motion of the same kind has previously been denied).

2022Indeed, the Defendant himself stated in the underlying Motion to Vacate that the coordinate jurisdiction rule allows departure from an earlier ruling when there is "a substantial change in the facts or evidence giving rise to the dispute in the matter, or where the prior holding was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice if fo11owed." Defendant's Motion, 1111 94-95 ( quoting Ryan v. Berman, 572 Pa. 156, 161 , 813 A.2d 792, 795 (2002); Goldey v. Trustees of Univ. ofPennsylvania, 544 Pa. 150, 155 , 675 A.2d 264, 267 (1996)).

2023It is clear that the coordinate jurisdiction rule does not apply “where the motions differ in kind.” Goldey v. Trs. of Univ. of Pa., 675 A.2d 264, 267 (Pa. 1996).

2022Indeed, the Defendant himself stated in the underlying Motion to Vacate that the coordinate jurisdiction rule allows departure from an earlier ruling when there is "a substantial change in the facts or evidence giving rise to the dispute in the matter, or where the prior holding was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice if fo11owed." Defendant's Motion, 1111 94-95 ( quoting Ryan v. Berman, 572 Pa. 156, 161 , 813 A.2d 792, 795 (2002); Goldey v. Trustees of Univ. ofPennsylvania, 544 Pa. 150, 155 , 675 A.2d 264, 267 (1996)).

2025The coordinate jurisdiction rule does not apply to decisions on motions that “differ in kind.” Parker v. Freilich, 803 A.2d 738, 745 (Pa.Super. 2002) (cleaned up).

2015As well, this Court has held unequivocally that a grant of a non-suit by one judge is not subject to the coordinate jurisdiction rule when a prior judge denied _______________________ (Footnote Continued) consistent with voluminous case law, and we rely upon Clearwater Concrete only to illustrate the problems with Appellants’ argument. -8- J-A26016-15 summary judgment on the same issue, “[s]ince a motion for summary judgment and a motion for non[-]suit are not motions of the same kind.” Parker v. Freilich, 803 A.2d 738, 745-46 (Pa. Super. 2002); cf. Ryan v. Berman, 813 A.2d 792, 795 (Pa. 2002)

2025Id. at 1286-87 .4 ____________________________________________ 4 The trial court relied heavily on Hunter v. City of Philadelphia, 80 A.3d 533, 537 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2013) in which the Commonwealth Court determined that the trial court did not violate the coordinate jurisdiction rule by granting the defendant’s request for nonsuit after a different judge had denied the defendant’s pretrial motion for summary judgment.

2020We concluded in Hunter that, “[b]ecause the City’s motion for summary judgment and request for non-suit occurred during different procedural phases of the case, with the latter following presentation of the 12 [p]laintiff’s case in chief . . . the trial court . . . did not violate the coordinate jurisdiction rule by granting the City’s request for non-suit.” Id. at 538 .

2025Under the umbrella of the law of the case doctrine, the coordinate jurisdiction rule provides that “judges of coordinate jurisdiction should not overrule each other’s decisions.” Commonwealth v. King, 999 A.2d 598, 600 (Pa. Super. 2010).

2025Finally, this Court recognizes: The coordinate jurisdiction rule, put simply, states that “judges of coordinate jurisdiction should not overrule each other’s decisions.” The rule, applicable in both civil and criminal cases, “falls within the ambit of the ‘law of the case doctrine.’” Our Supreme Court explained . . . that the law of the case doctrine “refers to a family of rules which embody the concept that a court involved in the later phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another judge of that same court or by a higher court in the earlier phases of the matter.

2015Compare Musumeci v. Penn’s Landing Corporation, 433 Pa.Super. 146, 151-152 , 640 A.2d 416, 419 (1994), appeal denied, 539 Pa. 653 , 651 A.2d 540 (1994) (the coordinate jurisdiction rule applies in all cases except where newly-discovered evidence or newly-developed legal authority compel a result different than that reached by the first judge) and Commonwealth v. Brown, 485 Pa. 368, 371 , 402 A.2d 1007, 1008 (1979) (where the evidence is substantially the same as that originally ruled upon by the first judge, a second judge commits a per se abuse of discretion in overruling or vacating the prio

2015Compare Musumeci v. Penn’s Landing Corporation, 433 Pa.Super. 146, 151-152 , 640 A.2d 416, 419 (1994), appeal denied, 539 Pa. 653 , 651 A.2d 540 (1994) (the coordinate jurisdiction rule applies in all cases except where newly-discovered evidence or newly-developed legal authority compel a result different than that reached by the first judge) and Commonwealth v. Brown, 485 Pa. 368, 371 , 402 A.2d 1007, 1008 (1979) (where the evidence is substantially the same as that originally ruled upon by the first judge, a second judge commits a per se abuse of discretion in overruling or vacating the prio

2019See Zane v. Friends Hosp., 836 A.2d 25, 29 (Pa. 2003) (“One of the distinct rules that [is] encompassed within the ‘law of the case’ doctrine is the coordinate jurisdiction rule.”); Commonwealth v. McCandless, 880 A.2d 1262, 1268 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“[A] law of the case claim is subject to waiver.”). -7-

2019See Zane v. Friends Hosp., 836 A.2d 25, 29 (Pa. 2003) (“One of the distinct rules that [is] encompassed within the ‘law of the case’ doctrine is the coordinate jurisdiction rule.”); Commonwealth v. McCandless, 880 A.2d 1262, 1268 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“[A] law of the case claim is subject to waiver.”). -7-

2021Also, in a somewhat analogous case, this Court rejected a law of the case argument and affirmed the grant of summary judgment; we addressed the coordinate jurisdiction rule and stated that the “purpose of this rule is to ensure a degree of pretrial finality so that judicial economy and efficiency can be maintained.” Petrongola v. Comcast-Spectacor, L.P., 789 A.2d 204, 214 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citing Salerno v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 546 A.2d 1168 , -7- J-A03005-21 1170 (Pa. Super. 1988).

2017Third, Erie relies upon Salerno v. Phila. - 11 - J-A14016-17 Newspapers, Inc., 546 A.2d 1168, 1170 (Pa.Super. 1988), in support of its contention that the coordinate jurisdiction rule is inapplicable where, as here, the same judge ruled on both the preliminary objections and the summary judgment motion.

2023See McGuire on behalf of Neidig v. City of Pittsburgh, 250 A.3d 516 , 526 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (noting party “must comply with the general rule to raise an issue at the earliest opportunity”) (citations and quotation omitted), aff’d, 285 A.3d 887 (Pa. 2022); Keffer v. Bob Nolan’s Auto Serv., Inc., 59 A.3d 621, 630 (Pa. Super. 2012) (party’s coordinate jurisdiction rule issue waived when first raised in post-trial motion).6 Even if Appellants properly preserved this issue for appeal, we hold that the coordinate jurisdiction rule is not implicated here.

2017The coordinate jurisdiction rule provides that "judges of coordinate jurisdiction should not overrule each other’s decisions.” Keffer v. Bob Nolan’s Auto Serv., 59 A.3d 621, 630 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted); see also Mariner Chestnut Partners, L.P. v. Lenfest, 152 A.3d 265, 282 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discussing coordinate juris *1262 diction rule as component of "law of the case” doctrine).

2026Moreover, the coordinate jurisdiction rule requires that “upon transfer of a matter between trial judges of coordinate jurisdiction, the transferee trial court may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the transferor trial court.” Lock v. City of Phila., 895 A.2d 660, 668 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).

2021The law of the case doctrine, or the coordinate jurisdiction rule, “refers to the long-recognized principle that judges of coordinate jurisdiction sitting in the same case should not overrule each other’s decisions.” Lock v. City of Philadelphia, 895 A.2d 660, 668 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).

2023See Mason’s Brief at 14. -4- J-S38008-22 a cause of action accrues, and the right to institute suit arises, when an injury is inflicted.” Bulebosh v. Flannery, 91 A.3d 1241, 1246 (Pa. Super. 2014).3 Pursuant to the coordinate jurisdiction rule, which this Court has described as an aspect of the law of the case doctrine, “a trial court judge may generally not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by another judge of the court.” Heart Care Consultants, LLC v. Albataineh, 239 A.3d 126, 132 (Pa. Super. 2020).

2023This Court applies a two-part test to determine whether a party is entitled to compel arbitration: ____________________________________________ 5 See Heart Care Consultants, LLC v. Albataineh, 239 A.3d 126, 132 (Pa. Super. 2020) (noting that pursuant to the coordinate jurisdiction rule, which this Court has described as an aspect of the law of the case doctrine, “a trial court judge may generally not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by another judge of the court”) (internal citation omitted). -8- J-A17024-23 (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists; and (2)

2021Co., 980 A.2d 588, 597 (Pa. 2009) (“Pursuant to the coordinate jurisdiction doctrine, judges of equal jurisdiction sitting in the same case should not overrule each other’s decisions.”) (citation omitted); 42 (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 30 - J-A09037-21 J-A09038-21 J-A09039-21 J-A09040- 21 A.2d 749 , 751 (Pa. 1998) (“[I]t is axiomatic that a court has inherent power to enforce its own orders of court and this court will not interfere with this enforcement absent an abuse of discretion.”).18 B.

2011Co., 602 Pa. 490 , 980 A.2d 588, 597 (2009) (holding that, under the coordinate jurisdiction doctrine, judges of equal jurisdiction sitting in the same case should not overrule each others’ decisions).

2020See also Kroptavich v. Pa. Power & Light Co., 795 A.2d 1048, 1054 (Pa.Super. 2002) (finding no violation of the coordinate jurisdiction rule where the first trial court denied summary judgment on a constructive discharge count finding that it was not preempted as matter of law, and after transfer of the case to a second judge, a second motion for summary judgment was filed on both the age discrimination claim and the constructive discharge claim, alleging insufficient facts were established to sustain each cause of action, as the courts addressed different legal questions, and the second judge

2003The coordinate jurisdiction rule falls within the “law of the case” doctrine, Buck Hill Falls Co. v. Press, 791 A.2d 392, 396 (Pa. Super. 2002), “which instructs that a court involved in the later phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another judge of the same court.” Kroptavich v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 795 A.2d 1048, 1054 (Pa. Super. 2002).

2015Compare Musumeci v. Penn’s Landing Corporation, 433 Pa.Super. 146, 151-152 , 640 A.2d 416, 419 (1994), appeal denied, 539 Pa. 653 , 651 A.2d 540 (1994) (the coordinate jurisdiction rule applies in all cases except where newly-discovered evidence or newly-developed legal authority compel a result different than that reached by the first judge) and Commonwealth v. Brown, 485 Pa. 368, 371 , 402 A.2d 1007, 1008 (1979) (where the evidence is substantially the same as that originally ruled upon by the first judge, a second judge commits a per se abuse of discretion in overruling or vacating the prio

2015Compare Musumeci v. Penn’s Landing Corporation, 433 Pa.Super. 146, 151-152 , 640 A.2d 416, 419 (1994), appeal denied, 539 Pa. 653 , 651 A.2d 540 (1994) (the coordinate jurisdiction rule applies in all cases except where newly-discovered evidence or newly-developed legal authority compel a result different than that reached by the first judge) and Commonwealth v. Brown, 485 Pa. 368, 371 , 402 A.2d 1007, 1008 (1979) (where the evidence is substantially the same as that originally ruled upon by the first judge, a second judge commits a per se abuse of discretion in overruling or vacating the prio

2025Id. at 1286-87 .4 ____________________________________________ 4 The trial court relied heavily on Hunter v. City of Philadelphia, 80 A.3d 533, 537 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2013) in which the Commonwealth Court determined that the trial court did not violate the coordinate jurisdiction rule by granting the defendant’s request for nonsuit after a different judge had denied the defendant’s pretrial motion for summary judgment.

2024See e.g., Campbell v. Attanasio, 862 A.2d 1282, 1286-87 (Pa. Super. 2004) (holding that the coordinate jurisdiction rule was violated because a party’s motion in limine and motion for summary judgment raised the same issue, and cited on the same evidence, and there was no indication that the successor judge relied on additional facts); see also Rellick-Smith v. Rellick, 261 A.3d 506 , 518-19 (Pa. 2021) (holding that coordinate jurisdiction rule precluded successor trial judge from overruling ____________________________________________ 8 Judge Powell also briefly referred to the Agreement and

2021Gerrow v. John Royle & Sons, 813 A.2d 778, 782-83 (Pa. 2002) (plurality).5 In Ryan, “abundant” evidence was presented between the first and second rulings so as to remove the matter from the application of the coordinate jurisdiction rule.

2004Id., at 138 , 813 A.2d at 780 . ¶ 39 The Gerrows appealed the judgment to this Court, and we reversed and held that the expert reports were a permissible supplementation of the record pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035(b) and that the doctrine of coordinate jurisdiction, under the circumstances, would not have prevented Judge Abramson from revisiting the case management deadlines set forth by Judge O’Keefe.

2021Also, in a somewhat analogous case, this Court rejected a law of the case argument and affirmed the grant of summary judgment; we addressed the coordinate jurisdiction rule and stated that the “purpose of this rule is to ensure a degree of pretrial finality so that judicial economy and efficiency can be maintained.” Petrongola v. Comcast-Spectacor, L.P., 789 A.2d 204, 214 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citing Salerno v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 546 A.2d 1168 , -7- J-A03005-21 1170 (Pa. Super. 1988).

2016Additionally, in Petrongola , the motions had been decided by the same judge, also not implicating the coordinate jurisdiction rule. 789 A.2d at 214-15 .

2021However, the trial court failed to recognize that Judge Roscioli’s denial was based on timeliness, and did not constitute “the resolution of a legal question.” Because Judge Roscioli’s order did not address, let alone decide, - 12 - J-A04003-21 the merits of Appellant’s habeas motion, the trial court improperly invoked the coordinate jurisdiction rule in declining to consider Appellant’s Rule 606 motions because its ruling could not “alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided.” As this Court recognized in Mariner Chestnut Partners, supra, “To determine whether the law of the c

2021The coordinate jurisdiction rule does not apply where the motions ruled upon are of a different type.” Mariner Chestnut Partners, 152 A.3d at 282-83 (citations omitted).

2025“Departure from either the coordinate jurisdiction rule or the law of the case doctrine is allowed only in exceptional circumstances such as where there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, a substantial change in the facts or evidence giving rise to the dispute in the matter, or where the prior holding was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice if followed.” Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 39 A.3d 406, 412 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted).

2013This rule, known as the coordinate jurisdiction rule, is a rule of sound jurisprudence based on a policy of fostering the finality of pre-trial applications in an effort to maintain judicial economy and efficiency.” Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 39 A.3d 406, 412 (Pa.Super.2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Starr, 541 Pa. 564 , 664 A.2d 1326, 1331 (1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2021See Commonwealth v. Daniels, 104 A.3d 267, 278 (Pa. 2014) (discussing the coordinate jurisdiction rule, which prohibits “judges sitting on the same court in the same case [from] overruling each other’s decisions”).

2016Judge Gavin argues that permitting the trial court to grant Schneller relief would violate the coordinate jurisdiction rule which “provides that judges sitting on the same court in the same case should not overrule each other’s decisions.” Commonwealth v. Daniels, 104 A.3d 267, 278 (Pa. 2014).

2005The coordinate jurisdiction rule provides that “courts of the same jurisdiction cannot overrule each other’s decisions in the same case.” Buck Hill Falls Co. v. Clifford Press, 791 A.2d 392, 396 (Pa.Super.2002), appeal denied, 573 Pa. 688 , 825 A.2d 637 (2003).

2003The coordinate jurisdiction rule falls within the “law of the case” doctrine, Buck Hill Falls Co. v. Press, 791 A.2d 392, 396 (Pa. Super. 2002), “which instructs that a court involved in the later phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another judge of the same court.” Kroptavich v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 795 A.2d 1048, 1054 (Pa. Super. 2002).

2024Union, 150 A.3d 121, 127 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (holding that the coordinate jurisdiction rule did not preclude a judge from granting summary judgment on issues that had previously been raised and denied by another judgment on preliminary [J-47-2023] - 19 objections), and Gardella v. Borough of Dunmore, 62 A.3d 486 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (holding trial court’s summary judgment ruling, which was inconsistent with prior ruling on preliminary objections, did not violate collateral jurisdiction rule because, at preliminary objection stage, court was required to accept the allegations as true).

2016In Garzella , this court held that the coordinate jurisdiction rule “does not bar a judge on summary judgment from overruling another judge’s decision on preliminary objections ..., even on an identical issue.” 62 A.3d at 497 .

2020“This rule, known as the coordinate jurisdiction rule, is a rule of sound jurisprudence based on a policy of fostering the finality of pre-trial -7- J-A12016-20 applications in an effort to maintain judicial economy and efficiency.” Commonwealth v. Turner, 73 A.3d 1283, 1286 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 625 Pa. 649 , 91 A.3d 162 (2014).

2017The purpose of the coordinate jurisdiction rule is to “foster[] the finality of pre-trial applications in an effort to maintain judicial economy and efficiency.” Commonwealth v. Turner, 73 A.3d 1283, 1286 (Pa.Super. 2013) (quotation omitted).

2019Departure from either the coordinate jurisdiction rule or the law of the case doctrine is allowed only in exceptional circumstances such as where there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, a substantial change in the facts or evidence giving rise to the dispute in the matter, or where the prior holding was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice if followed. [Commonwealth v.] Rolan, [ 964 A.2d 398 ] at 405, (Pa. Super. 2008) (citing Starr, supra at 1332 ).

2019Departure from either the coordinate jurisdiction rule or the law of the case doctrine is allowed only in exceptional circumstances such as where there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, a substantial change in the facts or evidence giving rise to the dispute in the matter, or where the prior holding was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice if followed. [Commonwealth v.] Rolan, [ 964 A.2d 398 ] at 405, (Pa. Super. 2008) (citing Starr, supra at 1332 ).

2018See Okkerse v. Howe , 521 Pa. 509 , 556 A.2d 827 (1989).

2018See Okkerse v. Howe , 521 Pa. 509 , 556 A.2d 827 (1989).

2023“Under the coordinate jurisdiction rule . . ., a judge may generally not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by another judge of that court.” Xtreme Caged Combat v. Zarro, 247 A.3d 42, 46-47 (Pa. Super. 2021).

2021Significantly, however, “the coordinate jurisdiction rule does not bar a judge at a later and different procedural stage of the case from overruling another judge’s decision . . ., even on an identical legal issue and even where the record is unchanged.” Xtreme Caged Combat v. Zarro, 247 A.3d 42, 47 (Pa.Super. 2021).

2025In Bates v. Delaware County Prison Employees’ Independent Union, 150 A.3d 121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), this Court considered the recognized exceptions to the coordinate jurisdiction rule, particularly the clear error/manifest injustice exception, and reasoned: To accede to a coordinate judge’s order that is clearly erroneous would be not only to permit an inequity to work on the party subject to the order, but would allow an action to proceed in the face of almost certain reversal on appellate review.

2024Union, 150 A.3d 121, 127 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (holding that the coordinate jurisdiction rule did not preclude a judge from granting summary judgment on issues that had previously been raised and denied by another judgment on preliminary [J-47-2023] - 19 objections), and Gardella v. Borough of Dunmore, 62 A.3d 486 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (holding trial court’s summary judgment ruling, which was inconsistent with prior ruling on preliminary objections, did not violate collateral jurisdiction rule because, at preliminary objection stage, court was required to accept the allegations as true).