Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Rodriguez, B.

J-A10026-15 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. BELKIS RODRIGUEZ Appellant No. 1503 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order Entered August 7, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 14-1691 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, J., and JENKINS, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED AUGUST 20, 2015 Appellant, Belkis Rodriguez, appeals from the August 7, 2014 order denying her petitions to strike judgment and open default judgment filed against Appellee, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. After careful review, we dismiss this appeal. Appellate briefs must conform to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Further, “if the defects are in the brief of the appellant … and are substantial, the appeal … may be … dismissed.” Id. In this case, Appellant’s brief is woefully deficient. At the outset, we note that Appellant’s brief does not contain a statement of jurisdiction, a copy of the order in question, a statement of the questions presented, a J-A10026-15 summary of the argument, or a conclusion stating the relief sought, all of which are required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.1 See generally id. at 2111(a)(1), 2114, 2115, 2116, 2118. In addition, we note that although Appellant’s brief contains citations to legal authority, Appellant has failed to develop a cognitive argument for this Court to address. See id. at 2119(a) (stating, “[t]he argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part--in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed--the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent[]”). This Court will not consider an argument where an appellant fails to develop the issue. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009), cert. denied, Johnson v. Pennsylvania, 562 U.S. 906 (2010); see also Umbelina v. Adams, 34 A.3d 151, 161 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating, “where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived[]”), appeal denied, 47 A.3d 848 (Pa. 2012). Based on the foregoing, we deem these defects in Appellant’s brief to be substantial, precluding any meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, in ____________________________________________ 1 We note that Appellee argues Appellant’s appeal should be dismissed based on Appellant’s failure to comply with the briefing requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellee’s Brief at 11-13. -2- J-A10026-15 the exercise of our discretion under Rule 2101, we elect to dismiss this appeal.2 Appeal dismissed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 8/20/2015 ____________________________________________ 2 Even if we were to reach the merits of Appellant’s apparent claims, the October 21, 2014 opinion of the Honorable Linda K. M. Ludgate, fully and comprehensively discusses the bases for her August 7, 2014 order denying Appellant’s petitions. Accordingly, we would adopt said opinion as our own. -3-