J-S63004-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
JOAN LICHTMAN, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
ROBERT WALTON, KENNETH :
VENNERA, THOMAS HEIMBACH, :
ROBERT KRANDEL, DAVID STECKEL, :
RICHARD STEVENS, PAUL BARTLE, :
RONALD BLUESTEIN, JENNY BROWN, :
CHRISTOPHER CURCI, EMMETT :
FITZPATRICK, MATT FOLEY AND :
RICHARD GREENSTEIN, :
:
Appellees : No. 438 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order January 7, 2015,
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County,
Civil Division at No. September Term, 2014 0304
BEFORE: DONOHUE, MUNDY and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 12, 2015
Appellant, Joan Lichtman (“Lichtman”), appeals pro se from the order
entered on January 7, 2015 by the Philadelphia County Court of Common
Pleas, dismissing her complaint against Robert Walton, Kenneth Vennera,
Thomas Heimbach, Robert Krandel, David Steckel, Richard Stevens, Paul
Bartle, Ronald Bluestein, Jenny Brown, Christopher Curci, Emmett
Fitzpatrick, Matt Foley, and Richard Greenstein (collectively, “Appellees”).
For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm.
A summary of the facts and procedural history of this case is as
follows. In 1996, Lichtman applied to work as a Certified Public Accountant
J-S63004-15
at Zelenkofske Axelrod & Co., Ltd. (“ZA”). After ZA failed to hire her,
Lichtman filed a pro se action in the Philadelphia County Court of Common
Pleas against ZA under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§
12101-12213, claiming that she was not hired due to her arthritis. ZA
removed the case to federal court. Following a jury trial, the jury issued a
verdict in favor of ZA. In September 1999, the federal trial court entered
judgment against Lichtman. Lichtman filed several petitions and appeals to
no avail.
In 2001, Attorney Walter H. Flamm, Jr. (“Attorney Flamm”), an
attorney at the law firm of Flamm, Boroff & Bacine, P.C. (“FBB”), filed a
petition in federal court seeking to compel Lichtman to pay attorney’s fees
and costs stemming from FBB’s representation of ZA. The federal trial court
granted Attorney Flamm’s petition and entered judgment in the amount of
$41,879.12 against Lichtman. Thereafter, Attorney Flamm successfully
transferred the judgment to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
(hereinafter, the “trial court”).
FBB continued to attempt to collect on the judgment, and in 2003,
filed several writs of execution against Lichtman. During this time, the trial
court discovered that ZA ceased to exist in June 1997 after undergoing
corporate reorganization. The trial court directed FBB to file within twenty
days a certification that identified the correct party to prosecute the matter.
FBB filed an untimely response indicating that ZA was a withdrawn
-2-
J-S63004-15
incorporated business and failed to identify a proper successor in interest.
As a result, the trial court vacated all writs of execution against Lichtman.
In February 2006, FBB unsuccessfully motioned to voluntarily
substitute itself as a party defendant in the underlying action and the trial
court vacated the 2001 judgment against Lichtman. A panel of this Court
affirmed, finding no valid assignment from ZA to FBB, and thus, on July 1,
2009, the trial court ordered that ZA and FBB return to Lichtman all money
that had been collected on the judgment.
Lichtman filed several petitions and appeals in an attempt to recoup
the money from ZA and FBB. Lichtman also sent several harassing emails to
the trial court. On March 20, 2013, the Honorable Gary S. Glazer (“Judge
Glazer”) of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas entered an order
precluding any future filings in the matter by Lichtman. Judge Glazer found
that Lichtman had pursued the litigation in bad faith and in so doing, had
abused the judicial process. Lichtman filed an appeal to this Court, wherein
a panel of this Court found all of Lichtman’s issues on appeal waived and
affirmed Judge Glazer’s order.
On September 2, 2014, Lichtman filed a pro se praecipe for writ of
summons against Appellees, thirteen attorneys at the law firm of Flamm
Walton Heimbach & Lamm, P.C. (“Flamm Walton”), the successor in interest
to FBB. On November 17, 2014, Appellees filed against Lichtman a praecipe
for rule to file complaint within twenty days. Lichtman complied and filed a
-3-
J-S63004-15
complaint on December 8, 2014. In her complaint, Lichtman sought the
return of “improperly seized moneys, assets, and property, with damages, …
sanctions, and relevant/derivative legal proceedings, which may include
prosecution, disbarment, and incarceration, to the fullest extent allowed by
law.” Lichtman’s Complaint, 12/8/14, at 1. Lichtman alleged that Attorney
Flamm, who is not a named party to the action, suborned perjury,
committed fraud by fabricating a bill for legal fees that he presented to the
court, and fraudulently obtained a judgment against Lichtman during the
course of his representation of ZA in the underlying proceedings. Id. at 2-9.
Lichtman further alleged that Appellees had knowledge of Attorney Flamm’s
criminal acts since they worked at the same firm, and that they had a duty
to report Attorney Flamm’s criminal activity. Id.
On December 10, 2014, Appellees filed preliminary objections and a
motion to dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 233.1 of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure. On January 7, 2015, the Honorable Mark I.
Bernstein (“Judge Bernstein”) sustained Appellees’ preliminary objections
and dismissed the action pursuant to Rule 233.1. Lichtman filed a motion
for reconsideration on January 17, 2015, which Judge Bernstein denied on
May 15, 2015. In the interim, on February 2, 2015, Lichtman filed a timely
notice of appeal raising the following questions for our review:
I. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or
make an error of law, when interfering in the
administration of justice through directly
-4-
J-S63004-15
contradictory orders, which locked an adjudicated
pauper out of the courts and denied due process?
II. Did the trial court abuse [its] discretion; act in
the absence of jurisdiction; act outside the scope of
judicial authority; aid, abet, or commit crimes
against [Lichtman]; retaliate against [Lichtman]; act
with bias, malice, ill-will; violate the Rules of
Professional Conduct and/or the Canons of Judicial
Conduct; manipulate judicial machinery; interfere in
the administration of justice; alter the outcome of a
case; and/or endanger the welfare and survival of an
innocent, unrepresented, adjudicated pauper, when
suddenly issuing four dismissals with prejudice in
four separate cases, all on the same day, when[] all
the cases had been languishing for months in the
court, waiting for overdue judicial decisions on
[Lichtman]’s pauper petitions, so that original
process could be served?
Lichtman’s Brief at 1.
Our standard of review of an order sustaining preliminary objections is
de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Trexler v. McDonalds Corp.,
118 A.3d 408, 412 (Pa. Super. 2015). Thus, “[w]e must determine whether
the trial court committed an error of law.” Id.
For her first issue on appeal, Lichtman asserts that Judge Bernstein
abused his discretion by dismissing the action and denying Lichtman her
basic constitutional right of access to the courts. Lichtman’s Brief at 6-7, 13.
Lichtman contends that the federal court lacked jurisdiction when it entered
judgment against her in 2001 because the judgment was based upon
Attorney Flamm’s fabricated legal fee petition, as Attorney Flamm knew ZA
ceased to exist and he therefore did not have a client at the time he filed his
-5-
J-S63004-15
petition. Id. at 9. Lichtman assails all subsequent decisions made by the
Pennsylvania courts, claiming that they were erroneously entered based on
the fraudulently obtained judgment. Id. at 10.
Lichtman further challenges Judge Bernstein’s dismissal of the action
based on FBB’s noncompliance with Judge Glazer’s order to return all money
to Lichtman. Id. at 11. Lichtman argues that she has not received any
money despite Judge Glazer’s order and has since been locked out of court
by Judge Glazer, who refuses to enforce his own order. Id. As a result,
Lichtman asserts that Judge Bernstein’s dismissal of her action “aided and
abetted the commission of crimes” that were committed in the prior
proceedings by Attorney Flamm. Id. at 12-13.
Upon review, we conclude that we need not address the merits of
Lichtman’s claims in this instance because she failed to develop an argument
in support of her claims in accordance with Rule 2119 of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 2119(a) provides that “[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.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).
“Citations of authorities must set forth the principle for which they are
cited.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b). “Appellate arguments which fail to adhere to
these rules may be considered waived, and arguments which are not
-6-
J-S63004-15
appropriately developed are waived. Arguments not appropriately
developed include those where the party has failed to cite any authority in
support of a contention.” Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa.
Super. 2014) (quoting Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21, 29-30 (Pa. Super.
2006)).
In support of the first issue raised on appeal, Lichtman fails to present
any legal argument, citation to authority, or analysis relevant to her claims
regarding the alleged lack of jurisdiction in the underlying proceedings or the
trial court’s abuse of discretion in dismissing the action pursuant to Rule
233.1. Instead, Lichtman solely focuses the argument portion of her brief
on bald allegations that Attorney Flamm committed criminal acts of perjury
and complains that the trial court engaged in corruption in the underlying
proceedings. Lichtman’s failure to develop an argument and cite to relevant
authority precludes meaningful review by this Court.
Moreover, to the extent Lichtman raises any arguments, they
constitute untimely attempts to appeal decisions previously rendered by the
courts in the underlying matter. These issues are not presently before this
Court as these issues were already appealed and decided, and thus, “we are
obligated to follow the law as articulated by the previous panel.”
Commonwealth v. Pepe, 897 A.2d 463, 466 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Furthermore, any issues that were not raised in prior appeals are waived, as
appeals must be taken within thirty days of a final order. See Pa.R.A.P.
-7-
J-S63004-15
903(a). As a result, we conclude that Lichtman waived her first issue for
appeal, and is not entitled to relief.
For her second issue on appeal, Lichtman asserts that the trial court
improperly relied upon Rule 233.1(a) in dismissing her complaint.
Lichtman’s Brief at 19. This Court has previously held that “Rule 233.1
makes clear that the power to bar frivolous litigation at the trial court level
rests with the trial court.” Bolick v. Commonwealth, 69 A.3d 1267, 1270
(Pa. Super. 2013). Rule 233.1 provides as follows:
(a) Upon the commencement of any action filed by a
pro se plaintiff in the court of common pleas, a
defendant may file a motion to dismiss the action on
the basis that
(1) the pro se plaintiff is alleging the same or
related claims which the pro se plaintiff raised in a
prior action against the same or related
defendants, and
(2) these claims have already been resolved
pursuant to a written settlement agreement or a
court proceeding.
(b) The court may stay the action while the motion is
pending.
(c) Upon granting the motion and dismissing the
action, the court may bar the pro se plaintiff from
pursuing additional pro se litigation against the same
or related defendants raising the same or related
claims without leave of court.
(d) The court may sua sponte dismiss an action that
is filed in violation of a court order entered under
subdivision (c).
-8-
J-S63004-15
(e) The provisions of this rule do not apply to actions
under the rules of civil procedure governing family
law actions.
Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 (italicization omitted).
By way of explanation, our Supreme Court offered the following
comment to Rule 233.1:
It has come to the attention of the Supreme Court
that certain litigants are abusing the legal system by
repeatedly filing new litigation raising the same
claims against the same defendant even though the
claims have been previously adjudicated either
through settlement or through court proceedings.
New Rule 233.1 provides relief to a defendant who
has been subjected to this type of repetitive
litigation. While attorneys are subject to the rules of
disciplinary procedure, no analogous rule exists to
curb this type of abuse when done by a pro se party.
Upon the filing of an action by a pro se plaintiff, a
defendant may file a motion to dismiss a pending
action provided that (1) the pro se plaintiff is alleging
the same or related claims against the same or
related defendants, and (2) the claims have already
been resolved pursuant to a settlement agreement
or a court proceeding. The new rule also gives the
trial court discretion to bar the pro se litigant from
filing further litigation against the same or related
defendants raising the same or related claims
without leave of court.
Pa.R.C.P. 233.1, Explanatory Comment (2010) (italicization omitted).
In this case, Judge Bernstein dismissed Lichtman’s complaint pursuant
to Rule 233.1(a)(1), stating,
[Lichtman][] raised the same claims in a prior
action Lichtman v. Zelenkofske Axelrod & Co.
Ltd., June Term 2003-1092. The claims raised in
-9-
J-S63004-15
this present matter are against the same or related
defendants as those raised in Lichtman v.
Zelenkofske Axelrod & Co. Ltd. In [that case] the
Honorable Gary Glazer entered an order stating[,]
“There is no question that this litigation, commenced
by Joan Lichtman, is being continued in bad faith and
constitutes a blatant abuse of the judicial process.”
Judge Glazer directed the Prothonotary to not accept
any further pleadings from Joan Lichtman in the case
under any circumstances. The case was dismissed
pursuant to Judge Glazer’s [o]rder. Judge Glazer’s
[o]rder was affirmed by the Superior Court.
Trial Court Opinion, 6/17/15, at 1-2.
Lichtman asserts that the trial court erred because “[t]he grounds for
[her] current case are clearly, and necessarily, different from the issues
which [Attorney] Flamm raised in the prior case[.]” Lichtman’s Brief at 20.
She further contends that “Judge Glazer’s words could not possibly have had
any merit, years after the fact, and to wholly unrelated issues/cases with
different litigants and different subject matter.” Id. at 14. We disagree.
This Court has previously stated:
Rule 233.1 does not require the highly technical
prerequisites of res judicata or collateral estoppel to
allow the trial court to conclude that a pro se
litigant’s claims are adequately related to those
addressed in prior litigation. Nor does it require an
identity of parties or the capacities in which they
sued or were sued. Rather, it requires a rational
relationship evident in the claims made and in the
defendant’s relationships with one another to inform
the trial court’s conclusion that the bar the Rule
announces is justly applied.
- 10 -
J-S63004-15
Gray v. Buonopane, 53 A.3d 829, 838 (Pa. Super. 2012) (italicization
omitted).
In this case, Lichtman initiated suit against thirteen attorneys at
Attorney Flamm’s law firm. Lichtman’s complaint against Appellees pertains
solely to Attorney Flamm’s actions in the underlying collection action,
claiming that “[b]y remaining silent, each partner and associate of Flamm
Walton becomes a willing co-conspirator of [Attorney] Flamm[.]” Lichtman’s
Brief at 22. Moreover, Lichtman’s brief is replete with arguments regarding
errors committed by the courts in the underlying proceedings. Thus, based
upon the record before us, we conclude that Judge Bernstein appropriately
extended Judge Glazer’s order to the instant complaint. Accordingly, we are
unable to discern of any abuse of discretion by the trial court.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/12/2015
- 11 -