J-S90032-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MICHAEL OSEI IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
SUGARHOUSE CASINO, ALEXIS R.
KROLL, WENDY HAMILTON, TONI
DILACQUA
Appellees No. 919 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered February 19, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): 2664 June Term 2015
BEFORE: OTT, J., SOLANO, J. AND JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 02, 2016
Michael Osei (“Appellant”) appeals from an order entered February 19,
2016 by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas denying Appellant’s
Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Appeal and Nunc Pro Tunc Order Modification.
After careful review, we quash this untimely appeal.
This matter stems from Appellant’s amorous pursuit of Alexis Kroll, a
cocktail waitress at Sugarhouse Casino, which resulted in the State Police
bringing summary criminal harassment charges against Appellant. Ms. Kroll
did not receive a subpoena notifying her of the date and time of Appellant’s
harassment hearing, however, and so she did not appear to testify. As a
result, the Philadelphia Municipal Court dismissed the case.
J-S90032-16
Thereafter, acting pro se, Appellant brought the instant action in which
he claimed, inter alia, that because the Municipal Court dismissed the
harassment charges, he is entitled to defense attorney’s fees1 and the return
of tips he gave to Ms. Kroll. On May 21, 2015, following a hearing, the
Municipal Court entered judgment in favor of Appellees. The trial court
summarized the further relevant procedural posture of this matter as
follows:
On June 19, 2015, [Appellant] filed an appeal to [the trial
court] from the Municipal Court judgment entered in favor of
[Sugarhouse Casino, Alexis Kroll, Wendy Hamilton, and Toni
Dilacqua (collectively “Appellees”)] and subsequently filed a
Complaint on July 17, 2015. On August 6, 2015, [Appellees]
filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint, which [the trial
court] sustained without prejudice for [Appellant] to file a
properly pleaded Amended Complaint. On October 16, 2015,
[Appellant] filed an Amended Complaint to which [Appellees]
filed Preliminary Objections on November 9, 2015. On
December 7, 2015, [the trial court] sustained [Appellees’]
Preliminary Objections and dismissed the amended Complaint
with prejudice. On January 21, 2016, [Appellant] filed an
untimely Motion for Reconsideration[,] which this [c]ourt denied
on January 22, 2016. On January 26, 2016, [Appellant] filed an
untimely Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court.[2] On January
25, 2016, [Appellant] filed a Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Appeal
____________________________________________
1
Appellant was represented by counsel during the prosecution of the
harassment charges. He claims $3,500.00 of attorney’s fees.
2
This Court addressed Appellant’s appeal from the December 7, 2015 order
sustaining Appellees’ preliminary objections and dismissing Appellant’s
amended complaint with prejudice at 394 EDA 2016. By dispositional order
filed April 1, 2016, this Court quashed Appellant’s appeal as untimely. See
Dispositional Order filed April 1, 2016, Osei v. Sugarhouse Casino, et al.,
394 EDA 2016.
-2-
J-S90032-16
and Nunc Pro Tunc Order Modification, to which [Appellees] filed
their opposition on February 16, 2016, and [the trial court]
denied the motion on February 19, 2016.[3] On March 22, 2016,
[Appellant] filed an untimely Notice of Appeal to the Superior
Court.
Trial Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, filed May 20, 2016, at pp. 1-2
(internal footnotes omitted).
Appellant raises the following two issues for our review:
1. WHETHER, the Trial Court erred and abused its discretion
denying Appellant’s (substituted) amalgamated motion for
nunc pro tunc relief to appeal the order entered on
December 8, 2015, and motion for nunc pro tunc order
despite supporting evidence(s) showing cause for delayed
appeal for about 18 days, as well as the trial Court’s failure
to do the following:
(i) without allowing Appellant to reply to Appellees’
response against the nunc pro tunc motions demanding
certain specifics;
(ii) without holding any evidentiary hearing;
(iii) without articulating any reason, explanation, grounds,
analysis, findings of facts, and conclusions of law on the
face of both the trial Court’s order and section 1925
opinion denying the nunc pro tunc reliefs.
2. WHETHER, Strong Public Policy and the demands of justice
requires this Court to look beyond form to set aside procedural
rules and grant nunc pro tunc reliefs in the interests of justice
for Appellant.
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 3-4 (verbatim).
____________________________________________
3
The order denying Appellant’s motion is actually dated February 18, 2016.
However, the prothonotary docketed the order and provided Appellant with
notice on February 19, 2016. Accordingly, we view the 19 th as the operative
date of the motion. See Pa.R.C.P. 236.
-3-
J-S90032-16
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 903 provides, in relevant
part, as follows:
Rule 903. Time for Appeal
(a) General rule. Except as otherwise prescribed by this rule,
the notice of appeal required by Rule 902 (manner of taking
appeal) shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order
from which the appeal is taken.
Pa.R.A.P. 903. Rule 903’s 30-day period must be strictly construed, and this
Court has no jurisdiction to excuse a failure to file a timely notice. In re
Greist, 636 A.2d 193, 195 (Pa.Super.1994). “Generally, an untimely appeal
divests this [C]ourt of jurisdiction.” Brown v. Brown, 641 A.2d 610, 611
(Pa.Super.1994).
Here, the prothonotary entered the trial court’s order denying
Appellant’s Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Appeal and Nunc Pro Tunc Order
Modification on the docket and provided Appellant with notice on February
19, 2016. The thirtieth day thereafter was March 20, 2016, a Sunday.
Accordingly, Appellant had until Monday March 21, 2016 to timely file his
notice of appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 903; see also 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908 (“Whenever
the last day of any such period shall fall on Saturday or Sunday, or on any
day made a legal holiday by the laws of this Commonwealth or of the United
States, such day shall be omitted from the computation”). Appellant filed
his notice of appeal March 22, 2016, one day late. As a result, we lack
jurisdiction over this appeal. See In re Greist, supra.
Appeal quashed.
-4-
J-S90032-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/2/2016
-5-