J-A14034-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DOMENIC A. TRICOME, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
AUTOMATTIC, INC., MATTHEW
MULLENWEG AND TONI SCHNEIDER,
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C., CHRISTOPHER MORAN
AND TARA PFEIFER, LOIS MURPHY,
Appellees No. 3399 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Dated September 15, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Civil Division at No(s): 2011-03065
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES and SHOGAN, JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED MAY 18, 2017
Appellant, Domenic A. Tricome, pro se, purports to appeal from an
order entered on September 15, 2016, sustaining the preliminary objections
filed by Appellees Automattic, Inc., Matthew Mullenweg and Toni Schneider,
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Christopher Moran and
Tara Pfeifer, and Lois Murphy, and dismissing Appellant’s Complaint with
prejudice. After review, we are constrained to quash this appeal.
Substantial deviations from the rules governing appellate briefs are
sufficient grounds to suppress an appellant’s brief and quash or dismiss an
appeal. Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1285 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citing
Pa.R.A.P. 2101); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2111–2119 (setting forth in detail the
J-A14034-17
required content of appellate briefs). Additionally, this Court has
emphasized that it is the appellant’s obligation to present arguments that
are sufficiently developed for our review. In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 674 (Pa.
Super. 2012). “We will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments
on behalf of an appellant.” Id. “Although this Court is willing to liberally
construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special
benefit upon the appellant.” In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211–1212 (Pa.
Super. 2010). “To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in
a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of
expertise and legal training will be his undoing.” Id. at 1212. Accordingly,
a litigant’s pro se status does not relieve him of the duty to follow the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947
A.2d 206, 213 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2008).
Here, Appellant’s brief fails to comply in any meaningful way with
Pa.R.A.P. 2119. Rather, Appellant’s argument assails the judicial system in
general, states that there are items that could be submitted as evidence and
witnesses that could be procured at some unspecified date in the future, and
demands remand for damages. Appellant’s Brief at 3–4. However,
Appellant fails to reference the facts of the case, cite to the record or
relevant authority, provide a statement regarding where issues were
preserved for appeal, or state any basis upon which any relief may be
granted in gross deviation from the requirements of Rule 2119. Thus, while
-2-
J-A14034-17
we are willing to liberally construe Appellant’s brief, what has been filed here
is egregiously deficient. Appellant’s violations of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure prohibit any meaningful review and require this Court to
quash the appeal.1
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/18/2017
____________________________________________
1
We note that on May 9, 2017, Appellees Automattic, Inc.,
Matthew Mullenweg and Toni Schneider, filed with this Court an application
for continuance of oral argument. In light of our decision to quash the
appeal, the application for continuance is DENIED AS MOOT.
-3-
Tricome, D. v. Automattic, Inc.
Combined Opinion