author: OLSZEWSKI, Judge:

text:
    568 A.2d 635
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Albert CORBIN, Appellee.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted Dec. 6, 1989.
    Filed Jan. 5, 1990.

      Frances G. Gerson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for Com., appellant.
    Gerald A. Stein, Philadelphia, for appellee.
    Before McEWEN, OLSZEWSKI and TAMILIA, JJ.
   OLSZEWSKI, Judge:

This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County granting Albert Corbin’s (hereinafter appellee's) motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 1100(c). On appeal, the Commonwealth submits that the trial court improperly ordered appellee discharged after concluding that the Commonwealth was not duly diligent in bringing appellant to trial. For the following reasons, we reverse.

This case arose as the result of the stabbing of one Shernon Blair, on April 20, 1987, as he stood on the front steps of his home. On that same date, appellee was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person and possession of an instrument of crime. Thus, pursuant to Rule 1100(a)(3), the Commonwealth had until October 19, 1987 to bring appellee to trial.

On April 27, 1987, the first listing of the case, appellee appeared unrepresented. At the request of appellee, the case was continued until May 11, 1987 so that private counsel could be obtained. On May 11, 1987, upon joint application of both parties, the case was again continued until May 22, 1987. On that date, appellee was held for court on all charges and arraignment was scheduled for June 12, 1987.

On June 12, 1987, appellee’s case was listed for trial to begin on August 10, 1987. Trial did not commence as scheduled, however, as appellee’s counsel was trying another case and was unavailable. Accordingly, the case was continued until November 10, 1987, at which time appellee again requested a continuance due to his counsel's participation at another proceeding. The court honored this request, and trial was set for February 17, 1988. Due to the failure of appellee’s counsel to appear on that date, however, the case was again continued, this time to May 23, 1988. In the interim, on February 22, 1988, the Commonwealth filed a petition to extend.

On May 23, 1988, after appellee failed to appear due to an illness, the case was rescheduled for the next day, May 24, 1988. On that date, appellee again failed to appear and a bench warrant was issued for his apprehension. Once this was accomplished, a bench warrant hearing was held at the Philadelphia Detention Center on June 6, 1988, the bench warrant was withdrawn, and a new date of August 3, 1988 was given for trial. Unfortunately, on this date, the police officer scheduled to testify on behalf of the prosecution was on vacation and unavailable. Therefore, the Commonwealth requested a continuance and orally amended its petition to extend. The case was then re-listed for November 28, 1988, at which time appellee presented a motion to dismiss under Rule 1100. Holding the motion under advisement, the trial court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on November 30, 1988.

At the time of the hearing, both the Commonwealth and counsel for appellee agreed that the actual rúndate of this case, taking into consideration all excludable time attributed to appellee, was October 31,1988. In addition, the Commonwealth offered the testimony of Officer John Feeney, the court liaison officer on duty the day of appellee’s bench warrant hearing. Officer Feeney testified as to the large number of bench warrant hearings scheduled for June 6, 1988, in an effort to explain the scheduling of appellee’s trial on the date of the police officer’s vacation. At the conclusion of the hearing, despite finding credence in Officer Feeney’s explanation, the trial court refused to allow the Commonwealth an extension of time and granted appellee’s motion to dismiss. After denial of its petition for reconsideration, the Commonwealth filed the instant appeal.

We must now determine whether the court properly denied the extension and discharged appellee based upon the conclusion that the Commonwealth had failed to exercise due diligence in attempting to secure the presence of the police witness for trial on August 3, 1988.

In order to be entitled to an extension under former Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(c), the Commonwealth must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it acted with due diligence at the last listing before the amended rúndate and any listing thereafter to bring the case to trial. Commonwealth v. Burke, 344 Pa.Super. 288, 291-93, 496 A.2d 799, 801 (1985). The test to determine whether the Commonwealth acted with due diligence is one of reasonableness under the circumstances. [7d] When we review a trial court’s ruling, relative to whether the Commonwealth has met its burden of proving due diligence, we consider only the evidence presented at the hearing by the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence presented by the defendant which remains uncontradicted. Commonwealth v. Yant, 314 Pa.Super. 442, 445-47, 461 A.2d 239, 241 (1983).

Commonwealth v. Brawner, 381 Pa.Super. 265, 270-271, 553 A.2d 458, 460-461 (1989) (footnote omitted).

Keeping this standard in mind, we turn to the record. On August 3, 1988, upon learning that its police witness was on vacation and unavailable for trial, the Commonwealth asked for a continuance and orally amended its petition to extend. The trial court granted this continuance and set November 28,1988 as the earliest date available to try this matter. At the evidentiary hearing on November 30, 1988, the Commonwealth offered the testimony of Officer John Feeney, the court liaison officer who was on duty June 6, 1988, the day of appellee’s bench warrant trial. Officer Feeney testified that he was responsible for assisting in the assignment of new court dates in cases where police officers were to be witnesses. He indicated that it was his job to see that the new trial date was such that the police witness would be on day work duty, thus available to testify, rather than on vacation. Officer Feeney related that on the date of appellee’s bench warrant hearing, approximately 239 cases were in need of attention. It was Officer Feeney’s task to go through the files of each case, note the vacation schedule of each officer, and inform the bail commissioner so that each case could then be given the earliest possible date for trial. Because the caseload was so great, however, Officer Feeney was unable to check the vacation dates on all 239 cases. As a consequence, appellee’s case was given the earliest possible date, August 3, 1988, without the court liaison officer having checked the vacation schedule of the Commonwealth’s police witness. On that date, therefore, the witness was on vacation and unavailable, without ever receiving notice of his court date.

Despite crediting Officer Feeney’s explanation of the circumstances involved on June 6, 1988, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss and discharged appellee. It reasoned:

The evidence before the Court indicated that had there been sufficient preparation time, or increased staff at the Detention Center on the date of defendant’s bench warrant hearing, the records available would have been checked and the case would not have been listed during the officer's vacation. Thus, the continuance to November 28, 1988 does not demonstrate due diligence by the Commonwealth.

Trial court opinion at 8. We disagree.

It is well settled that “when a witness becomes unavailable towards the end of the Rule 1100 run date-^due to illness, vacation, or other reason not within the Commonwealth’s control, the Commonwealth is prevented from commencing the trial within the requisite period despite due diligence, and an extension of time is warranted.” Commonwealth v. Weaver, 363 Pa.Super. 194, 199, 525 A.2d 785, 788 (1987). In addition, “we have recognized that defense-caused delays may realistically obstruct diligent efforts by the Commonwealth to try an accused within the 180-day period, and therefore may help to justify a Rule 1100(c) extension.” Commonwealth v. Hollingsworth, 346 Pa.Super. 199, 210-11, 499 A.2d 381, 386 (1985).

In the case at bar, appellee had effectively postponed the consummation of these proceedings for approximately one year through his numerous delays. During all of these delays, it is certain that no attempt was made by the Commonwealth to evade the provisions of Rule 1100, nor can it be argued that the Commonwealth acted in bad faith in attempting to bring this matter to a conclusion. To the contrary, according to the record, the Commonwealth was available, with its police witness, on five different occasions when appellee failed to appear. Indeed, appellee’s failure to appear on May 24, 1988, necessitating his apprehension, was the sole cause of the bench warrant hearing at which his case was inadvertently listed during the police witness’s vacation. Despite accepting Officer Feeney’s testimony that the cause of the inadvertent listing was due to an overburdened docket coupled with an inadequate number of staff present at the detention center, the trial court found the fault to lie squarely on the shoulders of the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Harris, 315 Pa.Super. 544, 462 A.2d 725 (1983) (where trial coordinator responsible for continuation of trial beyond rúndate, Commonwealth entitled to extension); Commonwealth v. Wroten, 305 Pa.Super. 340, 451 A.2d 678 (1982) (where administrative error caused case to be listed past its rúndate, Commonwealth acted diligently and extension was warranted). Under these circumstances, the trial court most certainly abused its discretion in discharging appellee.

In reaching our conclusion, we are careful to keep in mind the dictates of our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Genovese, 493 Pa. 65, 69-70, 72, 425 A.2d 367, 369-370, 371 (1981):

Rule 1100 “serves two equally important functions: (1) the protection of the accused’s speedy trial rights, and (2) the protection of society,” Commonwealth v. Brockle hurst, 491 Pa. 151, 153-54, 420 A.2d 385, 387 (1980); Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 449 Pa. 297, 297 A.2d 127 (1972). In determining whether an accused’s right to a speedy trial has been violated, consideration must be given to society’s right to effective prosecution of criminal cases, both to restrain those guilty of crime and to deter those contemplating it. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 487 Pa. 197, n. 4, 409 A.2d 308, n. 4 (1980). The administrative mandate of Rule 1100 certainly was not designed to insulate the criminally accused from good faith prosecution delayed through no fault of the Commonwealth.
******
So long as there has been no misconduct on the part of the Commonwealth in an effort to evade the fundamental speedy trial rights of an accused, Rule 1100 must be construed in a manner consistent with society’s right to punish and deter crime. In considering matters such as that now before us, courts must carefully factor into the ultimate equation not only the prerogatives of the individual accused, but the collective right of the community to vigorous law enforcement as well. Strained and illogical judicial construction adds nothing to our search for justice, but only serves to expand the already bloated arsenal of the unscrupulous criminal determined to manipulate the system.

Here, the overwhelming evidence on the record indicates that at all times during the pendency of this case, the Commonwealth acted in good faith and with due diligence to try this matter within the time constraints outlined in Rule 1100. Because of an inordinate amount of delay on behalf of appellee, and an administrative breakdown at the detention center, this case was listed past the rúndate. Under these circumstances, we find the Commonwealth to be without fault for the unavailability of its witness which resulted in the November 28, 1988 trial listing. Accordingly, we find the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Commonwealth an extension of time and in dismissing appellee.

Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction relinquished.

      . Pa.R.Crim.P., Rule 1100(c), 42 Pa.C.S.A.

      . See footnote 4, infra.

      . No record of this motion exists in the Quarter Sessions file, nor has appellee provided this Court with a copy of same. In order to be deemed properly filed, a motion to dismiss should be in writing and filed with the trial court. See Commonwealth v. Terfinko, 504 Pa. 385, 474 A.2d 275 (1984); see also Commonwealth v. Nixon, 311 Pa.Super. 450, 457 A.2d 972 (1983) (presenting motion to judge is not a proper filing).

      . In its opinion, the trial court found the amended rúndate to be August 30, 1988, however, the court failed to take into consideration that period of time from the bench warrant hearing until the August 3, 1988 listing. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 498 Pa. 379, 446 A.2d 895 (1982). In addition, while both parties and the trial court were relying on an interpretation of the former Rule 1100, it should be noted that during the pendency of this case, our Supreme Court on December 31, 1987, amended Rule 1100 effective immediately. Sub-paragraph (a)(3) of this amended version provides that a defendant who is not incarcerated but free on bail, as here, must be tried within 365 days rather than the 180-day requirement of the old rule. In Commonwealth v. Palmer, 384 Pa.Super. 379, 558 A.2d 882 (1989), this Court held that the longer period of time provided for in the amended rule shall be applied as of the effective date to all cases “where the period established by the prior rule had not expired." Id. at 383, 558 A.2d at 884. As appellee’s case was pending in the trial court when the amended rule came into effect, the time frame within which to begin trial was 365 days, minus excludable time. Here, as we shall see, this period of time had not yet run when the trial court dismissed the case. This was clearly error on the part of the trial court. Because the Commonwealth failed to raise the applicability of this amended time frame as an issue to the trial court, however, we choose not to decide the case on this basis.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    568 A.2d 639
    William M. CUSTREN, Appellee, v. HARLEYSVILLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted Nov. 20, 1989.
    Filed Jan. 5, 1990.

      Joan I. Brecker, Philadelphia, for appellant.
    William E. Averona, Philadelphia, for appellee.

      Before CAVANAUGH, OLSZEWSKI and CERCONE, JJ.
   OLSZEWSKI, Judge:

Harleysville Insurance Company appeals from the trial court’s order imposing sanctions for failure to settle pursuant to Philadelphia Local Rule 170. On appeal, Harleysville argues that Rule 170 is unconstitutional, does not apply to first-party suits, and does not apply to this case. After careful consideration of appellant’s arguments, we affirm the order of the trial court.

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident. Appellant refused to pay one of appellee’s medical bills, claiming that the treatment was not a necessary and reasonable expense. Appellee instituted the present suit.

Before trial, the trial court held a settlement conference pursuant to Philadelphia Local Rule 170. The trial court concluded that the reasonable settlement value of the case was $750, the total cost of the disputed bill. Appellant refused to pay, and the trial court threatened to impose Rule 170 sanctions for failure to settle.

The jury returned a verdict of $750 and judgment was entered at $1,025, including statutory interest. The cost of trial was $3,224.50. The trial court imposed sanctions at ten percent of ten percent of the judgment, pursuant to Rule 170. Appellant objects to this imposition of sanctions.

1. Appellant argues that Rule 170 cannot be applied in this case because the jury’s verdict is not twenty percent greater than the trial court’s recommended settlement. This argument misstates the law. Rule 170 sanctions are keyed to the amount of the final judgment, not the amount of the jury verdict. See supra note 1. If the Philadelphia courts had intended to focus on the jury verdict, the Rule would say so. The final judgment in this case is $1025, more than 35 percent greater than the recommended settlement of $750. Accordingly, Rule 170 applies to this case.

2. Appellant also argues that Rule 170 deprives him of due process and the right to jury trial and is, therefore, unconstitutional. The appellate courts have not yet addressed the constitutionality of Rule 170; however, our holdings regarding similar rules and statutes clearly dictate the result in this case. Rule 170 does not violate due process and the right to trial by jury.

Our Supreme Court has long recognized that the right to jury trial does not preclude alternative preliminary procedures if the ultimate right to jury trial is preserved. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. Bradley, 499 Pa. 291, 453 A.2d 314 (upholding a program of non-jury trials with right of jury trial de novo); Parker v. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 483 Pa. 106, 394 A.2d 932 (1978) (upholding compulsory arbitration as a condition precedent to trial by jury in malpractice cases); Application of Smith, 381 Pa. 223, 112 A.2d 625 (1955) (upholding a compulsory arbitration plan which required the party appealing to a jury trial to pay certain costs), and cases cited therein. Due process merely requires that the right to present the case to a jury “not be burdened by the imposition of onerous conditions, restrictions or regulations which would make the right practically unavailable.” Application of Smith, 381 Pa. at 231, 112 A.2d at 629. Thus, the question before us is whether the sanctions under Rule 170 are onerous, making the right to trial by jury practically unavailable.

Rule 170 sanctions are not excessively burdensome. In fact, the sanctions in this case are less burdensome than those approved in Application of Smith, 381 Pa. 223, 112 A.2d 625 (1955). The local rule in Application of Smith required the appealing party to pay the arbitrator's fee, even where the amount in controversy is relatively small and even if the appellant prevailed at trial. Under Rule 170, the party refusing to settle pays no more than ten percent of the judgment, and pays that sum only if the final judgment after trial is twenty percent less favorable than the settlement value. In light of precedent, we find that the sanctions under Rule 170 are not an undue burden on the right to trial by jury.

3. Appellant further argues that Rule 170 is unconstitutional because it duplicates provisions in other rules and statutes. Pa.R.Civ.P. 239(b) provides that “[IJocal rules shall not be inconsistent with any general rule of the Supreme Court or any Act of Assembly.” Appellant argues that duplication of these provisions increases the penalty; thus, it is inconsistent with general rules and statutes. We hold that Rule 170 is sufficiently distinguishable from other rules; therefore, it does not violate Rule 239.

Appellant notes similarities between Philadelphia Rule 170 and 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1716. Both punish a party for failure to pay; however, their purposes are significantly different. Section 1716 is aimed specifically at insurers in the motor vehicle context and punishes them for unreasonable failure to pay a valid claim. This statute is designed to prevent insurers from profiting by bad-faith refusal to pay claims. On the contrary, Rule 170 is designed to clear Philadelphia’s overcrowded dockets by punishing parties who refuse to accept a reasonable settlement before trial. The rule and statute are distinguishable because they serve different purposes.

Pa.R.Civ.P. 238, not cited by appellant, is more problematic. Like Rule 170, it is designed to encourage settlement and discourage delay. Nevertheless, we find that Rule 238 is distinguishable. Rule 238, like § 1716, compensates the party harmed by the delay by paying that party interest on the sum withheld. It also prevents the recalcitrant party from deriving benefit by withholding funds. Rule 170, on the other hand, compensates the county for wasted judicial time and resources. Thus, the rules are distinguishable because they compensate different harms.

Rule 170 is not so similar to other rules and statutes as to be duplicative. We uphold Rule 170 against this attack.

4. Finally, Appellant argues that Rule 170 is not applicable to first-party lawsuits in which damages are liquidated. Appellant notes that much of the language in Rule 170 is uniquely appropriate to third-party lawsuits with unliquidated damages.

Appellant’s claim has no merit. While we agree that some of Rule 170’s provisions are most appropriate in third-party lawsuits with unliquidated damages, we note that the Philadelphia courts did not choose to provide that limitation. The rule is constitutional as it stands. We decline to read limitations into the rule when those limitations are not clearly specified in the text.

Order affirmed.

      . Philadelphia Local Rule 170 provides, in pertinent part:
      B. If any action tried by a jury in which the sole relief sought is money damages, the trial judge on his/her own motion or on motion of any party may direct the attorneys for the parties to appear for a settlement conference.
      C. Prior to termination of the settlement conference, the trial judge shall determine whether he/she can fairly evaluate the settlement value of the case.
      D. Should the trial judge determine that he/she can fairly evaluate the settlement value of the case, he or she shall promptly advise the attorneys for the parties of the evaluation, and the evaluation with the parties’ agreement or non-agreement with it shall be recorded and made a part of the action.
      E. Should the case be tried to a verdict and prior to the verdict one of the parties has agreed to accept or to pay the amount recommended by the trial judge, then, if the final judgment is twenty percent (20%) or more than the trial judge’s evaluation and the plaintiff has agreed to accept the trial judge’s recommendation (e.g., if the judge’s evaluation is Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) for the sanction rule to come into effect, the final judgment must be Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000) or more), or if the final judgment is twenty percent (20%) or less than the trial judge’s evaluation and the defendant had agreed to pay the trial judge’s recommendation (e.g., if the Judge’s evaluation is Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) for the sanction rule to come into effect, the final judgment 'must be Eight Thousand Dollars ($8,000) or less), then the trial judge may, within ten (10) days after the final judgment, schedule a hearing to determine whether or not any sanctions shall be ordered against the party who had refused to settle.
      H. [criteria to consider in deciding whether to impose sanctions]
      I. In the event the trial judge determines that sanctions shall be ordered against the party who refused to settle, he/she may order the party to pay to the County of Philadelphia the reasonable costs incurred as a result of the party’s refusal to settle ... In no event shall the order exceed ten percent (10%) of the judgment or trial judge’s recommendation, whichever is higher.

      . Contrary to the trial court’s suggestion, Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. Bradley, 499 Pa. 291, 453 A.2d 314 (1982), does not completely resolve the issue before us. Pittsburgh Coming dealt with a related Philadelphia local rule; however, the court never addressed the question whether sanctions under Rule 170 violate due process and the right to trial by jury.

      . In Application of Smith, the amount in controversy was $250 and the arbitrators’ fees were $75.


author: MONTEMURO, Judge:

text:
    568 A.2d 642
    Perry N. BLACKMAN, C.P.A., Appellee, v. Alexander KATZ, C.P.A., Appellant.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 1989.
    Filed Jan. 9, 1990.

      Janet S. Kole, Philadelphia, for appellant.
    Joseph J. Carlin, Philadelphia, for appellee.
    Before MONTEMURO, KELLY and HESTER, JJ.
   MONTEMURO, Judge:

Appellant, Alexander Katz, C.P.A., appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. Following a nonjury trial, the trial court found that appellant had engaged in an outrageous and unconscionable course of conduct which constituted unfair competition. The trial court enjoined appellant from soliciting or servicing the accounts of former clients of appellee, Perry N. Blackman, C.P.A., ordered an accounting of funds received from former Black-man accounts, and awarded compensatory and punitive damages, to be assessed at a hearing within ninety (90) days. Because the issue of damages remains unresolved, a final order has not yet been entered. We quash this appeal as interlocutory.

On November 8, 1988, appellee instituted this action in equity against appellant, seeking equitable relief and monetary damages arising from unfair competition and breach of loyalty and trust A bench trial was held on May 13 and 14, 1987. The trial court entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and a Memorandum and Order in favor of appellee on February 22, 1988. Appellant filed his motions for post-trial relief and exceptions on February 29, 1988. The trial court denied the post-trial motions on February 22, 1989. On April 18, 1989, the trial court’s orders of February 22, 1988 and February 22, 1989 were reduced to a judgment. Appellant brought this timely appeal.

The trial court’s findings of fact are as follows: In April of 1988, appellant and appellee were employed as accountants by Bernard Paltin, C.P.A. Paltin sued appellant, appellee, and some other employees, charging them with intent to take over his business. In settlement of the suit, appellee bought the Paltin business for the sum of one-hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), with a down-payment of ten-thousand dollars ($10,000.00) and the balance to be paid in forty-eight (48) monthly installments, secured by a promissory note from appellee to Paltin. Appellant was offered the opportunity to join with appellee in purchasing the Paltin business, but chose not to participate in the purchase.

After the settlement of the Paltin suit, appellant continued his employment with appellee, servicing those accounts purchased from Paltin by appellee as well as new accounts supplied by appellee. Appellant brought no new accounts to appellee’s firm (the Blackman firm). While still employed by the Blackman firm, appellant made plans to start his own practice. During regular business visits, he contacted most of the Blackman accounts, particularly those he thought would be beneficial to his interests, informed them that he was leaving the Blackman firm, and told them of the procedure to follow to leave the Blackman firm and transfer their accounts to appellant. After contacting the Blackman firm’s clients, appellant gave appellee two weeks notice of his intent to terminate employment. When asked by appellee which clients would likely follow appellant to his new business, appellant named most, if not all of the accounts that ultimately left the Blackman firm to go with appellant. Although he acknowledged that it would be fair to compensate appellee for those accounts appellant was taking with him, appellant refused to do so. Appellant is currently self-employed.

The trial court found that appellant violated his duty to appellee by unlawfully using his position of confidence to solicit the Blackman firm clients. The trial court found that appellant had engaged in an outrageous and unconscionable course of conduct which constituted unfair competition. In finding for appellee, the trial court entered the following order:

AND NOW, this 17th day of Feb., 1988, after a two day non-jury hearing on the 13th and 14th of May, 1987, and upon consideration of briefs submitted thereafter by all counsel, it is ORDERED and DECREED as follows:
1. Defendant, Alexander Katz, C.P.A. is hereby enjoined from soliciting or representing any accounts which had been entrusted to his care while employed by plaintiff, Perry N. Blackman, C.P.A.
2. Defendant, Alexander Katz, must account to plaintiff for all monies received from all accounts which had been entrusted to his care while employed by plaintiff, Perry N. Blackman.
3. Defendant, Alexander Katz must pay to plaintiff, Perry N. Blackman a sum equal to the actual damages arising from the loss of business and goodwill due to defendant’s breach of his obligation.
4. Defendant, Alexander Katz must pay to plaintiff, Perry N. Blackman, punitive damages equal to two times (2) the actual damages as a result of the outrageous and unconscionable course of conduct of Alexander Katz the intent of which was to benefit himself at the expense of his employer.
5. That a hearing will be held within ninety (90) days to assess damages. Jurisdiction by this Court for that purpose retained.
BY THE COURT:
CHARLES P. MIRARCHI, JR., J.

Appellant appeals from this order and the order of February 16, 1989 denying appellant’s post-trial motions. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court’s factual findings and conclusions of law are contrary to the weight of the evidence and are erroneous as a matter of law.

Before we may consider the merits of this appeal, we must determine whether it is properly before us. The appealability of an order is a question of jurisdiction and may be raised sua sponte. French v. United Parcel Service, 377 Pa.Super. 366, 369, 547 A.2d 411, 413 (1988). It is well-established that an appeal to this court will lie only from a final order, unless a right to appeal is expressly granted by statute or rule of court. Id.; Fried v. Fried, 509 Pa. 89, 93, 501 A.2d 211, 213 (1985) (citations omitted). This “final judgment” rule promotes the fair and efficient administration of justice by discouraging multiple appeals in a single case and the consequent protraction of litigation. French, supra, 377 Pa.Super. at 369, 547 A.2d at 413 (citations omitted).

A final order is one which ends the litigation or disposes of the entire case. Id., citing Piltzer v. Independence Federal Savings & Loan Association, 456 Pa. 402, 319 A.2d 677 (1974); Bagshaw v. Vickers, 286 Pa.Super. 246, 428 A.2d 664 (1981); Parker v. MacDonald, 344 Pa.Super. 552, 496 A.2d 1244 (1985). See also Fried v. Fried, supra, 509 Pa. at 93, 501 A.2d at 213.

We hold that the instant appeal is from an interlocutory order. The trial court’s order left unresolved the issue of damages, and thus did not dispose of the entire case. The question of damages in this case is intricately tied to the issue of appellant’s liability for unfair competition and breach of trust. The trial court’s determination of the amount of damages will entail an inquiry into which Black-man firm accounts had been entrusted to appellant’s care and unlawfully solicited by appellant, and a determination of the amount of damages arising from loss of business and goodwill due to appellant’s breach of his obligation. Were we to delve into the merits of the appeal at this stage, and affirm the trial court’s findings, the case would go back to Philadelphia County for trial on the issue of damages. Following a determination of damages, appellant could bring a second appeal claiming error on the trial court’s findings concerning damages. This is just the type of “piecemeal” litigation the final judgment rule was designed to prevent. Under these circumstances, where we would be required to carefully review the factual record and briefs on this appeal, and then conduct another detailed review of the record on a second appeal following a hearing on damages, we find that the order is an unappealable interlocutory order. Cf Swift v. Milner, 296 Pa.Super. 463, 442 A.2d 1144 (1982); Newill v. Piccolomini, 228 Pa.Super. 220, 323 A.2d 40 (1974).

This case is similar to those in which the court grants a default or partial summary judgment on the issue of liability but reserves for trial the issue of damages. We have held that this kind of judgment is interlocutory and unappealable. See Edney v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 356 Pa.Super. 160, 514 A.2d 194 (1986); Sims v. Feingold, 329 Pa.Super. 437, 478 A.2d 868 (1984); Praisner v. Stocker, 313 Pa.Super. 332, 459 A.2d 1255 (1983); Inselberg v. Employers Mutual Companies, 291 Pa.Super. 406, 435 A.2d 1290 (1981).

Although Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4) grants a right to appeal from an “order granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions ...,” we find that the order in this case is not an injunction within the meaning of Rule 311(a)(4). The trial court’s order provides, in part, equitable relief to appellee by enjoining appellant from servicing any accounts which had been entrusted to his care while employed by appellee and by directing appellant to account for all “monies” received from former Blackman firm clients. This injunctive portion, however, is tied to the legal remedy which requires that appellant pay monetary damages for loss of business and goodwill due to appellant’s alleged unlawful solicitation of Blackman clients. We hold that Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4) is not intended to permit interlocutory appeals of this type. Rule 311(a)(4) contains language identical to its federal counterpart, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The comment following Rule 311(a)(4) states that the rule is patterned after 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The federal courts have narrowly interpreted § 1292(a)(1) to permit appeals of interlocutory orders only where the order causes serious, if not irreparable, injury and can be effectually challenged only by immediate appeal orders. Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84, 101 S.Ct. 993, 996, 67 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981), quoting Baltimore Contractors, Inc., v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176, 181, 75 S.Ct. 249, 252, 99 L.Ed. 233 (1955); Stateside Machinery Company, Ltd. v. Alperin, 526 F.2d 480, 482 (3rd Cir.1975). Similarly, we reject a literal reading of the word “injunction” for purposes of Rule 311(a)(4). This Court has previously noted that Rule 311 “is an extraordinary measure which allows an appeal as of right where an appellate court can prevent irreparable harm to a party by reviewing certain interlocutory orders prior to the ultimate decision of the case.” Beckman v. Abramovitz, 344 Pa.Super. 149, 496 A.2d 53, 55 (1985), appeal dismissed, 512 Pa. 377, 516 A.2d 1386 (1986).

The order in this case does not cause serious or irreparable injury. The trial court stayed execution of the final judgment pending appeal. Thus, the order has not been destructive to appellant’s interests. The order can be challenged on appeal following final judgment. Appellant does not lose or waive his right to challenge the issue of his liability to appellee by virtue of our refusal to review it at this stage of the litigation. Upon determination of the amount of appellant’s liability to appellee for monetary damages, appellant can appeal the trial court’s findings as to appellant’s unlawful solicitation of the Blackman firm clients as well as the amount of damages stemming from this unlawful solicitation.

We hold that in this case, where the injunction is part of an interlocutory order which also grants monetary relief of an unresolved amount, and the order does not cause serious or irreparable harm and can be challenged on appeal after a final determination is made, the order is not appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4).

Our Supreme Court has recognized an exception to the final judgment rule, permitting review of an otherwise interlocutory order when “(1) it is separable from and collateral to the main cause of action; (2) the right involved is too important to be denied review; and (3) the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claimed right will be irreparably lost.” Pugar v. Greco, 483 Pa. 68, 73, 394 A.2d 542, 545 (1978), citing Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1226, 93 L.Ed. 1528, 1536 (1949). See also Fried v. Fried, supra, 509 Pa. at 94, 501 A.2d at 214; Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Company, 465 Pa. 225, 348 A.2d 734 (1975); Fox v. Gabler, 377 Pa.Super. 341, 547 A.2d 399, 402-04 (1988).

The order does not fit within the “collateral order doctrine” exception set forth in Cohen, supra, and adopted by our Supreme Court in Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Company, supra. The order is not separable or collateral to the main cause of action, since it addresses a main issue in the case: appellant’s liability to appellee for unfair competition and appellee’s remedy for the unlawful solicitation. Nor will postponement of review until final judgment result in irreparable loss of a claimed right. As noted above, the trial court stayed execution of the final judgment pending appeal, and, at this stage, the order has no practical effect on appellant. The issue of appellant’s liability to appellee is not waived by the inability of appellant to appeal at this stage. Following a hearing on damages, appellant can appeal the trial court’s findings as to appellant’s unlawful solicitation of the Blackman firm clients and the amount of damages. The order does not meet the first or third prongs of the standard set forth in Cohen. We will not review it at this stage of the litigation. The appeal must await the assessment of damages.

We quash this appeal as interlocutory and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Jurisdiction is relinquished.