DeLuca Enterprises, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.

J-A20037-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

DeLUCA ENTERPRISES, INC., AND : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DeLUCA OFFICE ASSOCIATES, G.P., : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : SAP AMERICA, INC., AND IDS SCHEER : AMERICAS, INC., : : APPEAL OF: DeLUCA OFFICE : ASSOCIATES, G.P., : : Appellant : No. 3278 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment entered on October 24, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Civil Division, No. 2008-02365

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., MUNDY and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 05, 2014 entered against it and DeLuca Enterprises, Inc.1 (collectively referred to as

2 We affirm.

The trial court concisely set forth in its Opinion the relevant facts and procedural history underlying this appeal, which we adopt herein by

1 DeLuca Enterprises, Inc. is not a party to this appeal. 2 IDS is not a party to this appeal.

J-A20037-14

reference. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/14, at 2-5.3, 4

On appeal, DeLuca presents the following issues for our review:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or commit an error of law in granting a nonsuit in favor of [SAP] on breach of contract claim against [SAP]:

a. [B]y prejudging and prematurely deciding, and as a result dismis Complaint[, i.e., breach of contract,] before the close of -]in[-]chief[?]

b. [B]y failing to find that [DeLuca] presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that [SAP] failed to deliver the [Enterprise Resource Planning] Software for the Homebuilding Industry [] containing the functional specifications [DeLuca] contracted for, as admitted by

[SAP] breached its contract with [DeLuca?]

c. [B]y failing to find that [DeLuca] presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that [SAP] denied [DeLuca]

the [Software Licensing Agreement,] thereby allowing the jury to conclude that [SAP] breached its contract with [DeLuca?]

d. Without considering the full and complete testimony of [Peterson]?

Brief for Appellant at 6 (some capitalization omitted). 3

-in-chief.

at that time. 4 -Trial Motion, DeLuca requested that the trial court vacate

different judge) on its breach of contract count against SAP. Therefore, only DeL

-2-

J-A20037-14

Initially, we express our disapproval of the Rule 1925(b) Concise concise, is 14 pages in length and sets forth 20 separate issues (and 28 subissues), many of which are redundant and voluminous. See Rule 1925(b) Concise Statement, 12/16/13; see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv) (providing

he Statement should not be redundant or provide lengthy

Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/14, at 5

ement). Although we acknowledge that Rule 1925(b) provides that, without more, the number of issues raised in a Concise Statement will not be grounds for

-redundant, nonfrivolous issues are set fort Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv); see also Tucker v. R.M. Tours, 939 A.2d 343, 346 coherent as to permit the trial court to understand the specific issues being

Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 401 (Pa. Super. 1925(b) statement, an appe an opinion addressing the issues on appeal, thereby effectively precluding 1925(b) Statement, we could deem all of its issues waived and dismiss the

-3-

J-A20037-14

appeal. Nevertheless, we, like the trial court, will address the merits of the issues. breach of contract claim against SAP.

The trial court, on the oral motion of a party, may enter a nonsuit if the plaintiff has failed to establish a right to relief. Pa.R.C.P., Rule 230.1, 42 Pa.C.S.A. In evaluating the trial

on behalf of the plaintiff as true, reading it in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff]; giving [the plaintiff] the benefit of every reasonable inference that a jury might derive from the

favor. Additionally, a compulsory nonsuit may be entered only in cases where it is clear that the plaintiff has not established a cause of action. When so viewed, a nonsuit is properly entered if the plaintiff has not introduced sufficient evidence to establish the necessary elements to maintain a cause of action.

, 59 A.3d 621, 631 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quotation marks, brackets, ellipses and citations to case law omitted). denial of its Post-Trial Motion seeking a new trial, our standard of review is

new trial, we must determine if the trial court committed an abuse of discretion or error of law

Brady v. Urbas, 80 A.3d 480, 483 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation and brackets omitted).

DeLuca first argues that the trial court committed reversible error by contract against SAP [] in the very early stages of

-4-

J-A20037-14 5 case[-]in[- In support of this claim,

made outside of the presence of the jury during the direct examination of because this is a fraud [in] the inducement case and we are now talking

-45; see also Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/14, at 16 (setting forth the full exchange between Judge Mellon and counsel for DeLuca). According to DeLuca,

two causes of action as against [SAP]: Breach of Contract, and

for fraud in the inducement against [SAP], but rather against

, the Trial Court clearly exhibited a pre-

Brief for Appellant at 23.

There is no evidence on the record showing prejudgment or

received a fair trial. [DeLuca was] allowed to present all of [its]

5 As noted above, the record is clear that the trial court did not actually rule after -in- chief.

-5-

J-A20037-14

point did the [Trial] Court interject in an inappropriate manner, or limit DeLuca from presenting [its] case.

Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/14, at 15; see also id. at 16 (wherein Judge supported by the record, and we discern no reversible error in his isolated

tract claim against SAP.6 Contrary to

i.e., the contract between SAP and DeLuca. together, as both assert that the trial court erred in granting a nonsuit based upon its determination that DeLuca had failed to establish a prima facie claim for breach of contract against SAP. See Brief for Appellant at 24-43.

DeLuca first argues that the trial court erred in determining that, as SAP had 7 undisputedly delivered the to

DeLuca, and the software was never run by DeLuca, DeLuca could not

6 was actually made in reference to

DeLuca did not raise a breach of contract claim against IDS. 7

an integrated solution for the Homebuilding Industry with state-of-the-art Variant Configuration (i.e., construction options coordination and fully integrated pricing and system management) functionality embedded within

-6-

J-A20037-14

establish a prima facie claim for breach of contract. Id. at 24-25, 26-28, 38. Specifically, DeLuca maintains that SAP breached the SLA by failing to

-in-

Id. at 25, 27, 38. In support of this claim, DeLuca points to the trial testimony of licensed ERP software[,] i.e.[,] a fully integrated software system built upon

Id. at 25 (citing N.T., 5/14/13, at 162). According to DeLuca, the trial court erred in failing to adequately consider

-26, 34.

equired under the

Id. at 38-39 (quoting Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/14, at 12).

Additionally, DeLuca argues that the trial court erred in failing to find [8]

contractually licensed t 8 See Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/14, at 12 n.58.

-7-

J-A20037-14

(footnote added; some internal quotation marks and capitalization omitted); see also id. at 37-38.

Finally, DeLuca argues that SA

Id. at 39.

In its Opinio above-mentioned claims, set forth the applicable law, discussed the relevant evidence of record, and determined that the court properly granted a nonsuit

See Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/14, at 7-by the law and the record, and we therefore affirm on this basis as to

See id.

In its final issue, DeLuca argues that Judge Mellon erred by granting

-47. Specifically, DeLuca contends that, during the playing to the jury of the videotaped deposition of

Id. at 43-44.

The trial court addressed this claim in its Opinion and determined that DeLuca waived the claim by its failure to object to this alleged impropriety. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/14, at 17; see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a)

-8-

J-A20037-14

Additionally, the trial court correctly determined that even if this claim was not waived, it lacks merit because the

Trial Court Opinion, 2/10/14, at 9; see also id. rationale, which is supported by the record. See id. at 9, 17.

After reviewing the record, and viewing all of the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to DeLuca, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that DeLuca had failed to establish a prima facie cause of action for breach of contract against SAP, and c Motion for Nonsuit regarding this count. Additionally, the trial court properly

-Trial Motion seeking a new trial on the breach of contract count. Therefore, we affirm the Judgment entered against DeLuca.

Judgment affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/5/2014

-9-