The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed an order of the Court of Common Pleas that denied the defendants’ motions to strike and/or open a confessed judgment. The Superior Court reviewed the plaintiffs’ claims, but resolution of the issues was primarily premised on the nature of the relief sought by the defendants. In a confession of judgment action, defendants may respond either with a petition to strike or to open the judgment. A petition to strike is appropriate only where the plaintiff’s complaint contains a fatal deficiency, whereas a petition to open is appropriate where a factual dispute exists. Here, the defendants were mainly disputing facts. Thus, the motion to strike was not the proper vehicle to challenge the confessed judgment.